Fine Gael Blocking Senator Norris's Candidacy for President

oceanclub

Via the journalist Neil Halligan (Longford Leader) on Twitter:

Twitter

Local Fine Gael councillor tells Senator David Norris that they've been instructed by HQ to oppose his nomination for Presidency.

I can perfectly understand FG not wanting to actively support David Norris's candidacy. But to actively seek to block it when they know he is current favourite shows a disregard for people's wishes and an insecurity about their own candidate.

Here's the email I've sent to Fine Gael (finegael@finegael.ie).

Dear Sir/Madam,

It’s been said in the media that Fine Gael headquarters have instructed their members to actively oppose the candidacy of Senator Norris for President. I hope this is untrue. Obviously, Fine Gael have no obligation to actively support his campaign. However, I think to actively block him even becoming nominated would be completely unfair to the many Irish people who in polls have indicated that they wish to vote for Senator Norris, and would be detrimental to people’s opinion of democracy in this country, already tarnished by scandals. It would also be detrimental to Fine Gael’s own candidate; should they eventually win the election after Senator Norris is excluded, their own victory would be perceived as a pyrrhic one and always subject to doubt and aspersions.

I hope the party reconsiders its course of action, and I thank you for reading this,

Is mise le meas, etc

P.

Cookie_Monster

well clearly they're going to oppose any nomination but their own...

PeterIanStaker

Even if they block it he can still be nominated, right?

oceanclub

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Even if they block it he can still be nominated, right?

Yup, it's still possible; but of course a lot more difficult.

Personally I can't see why they have taken this course of action. If they are successful, keep the current favourite out, and then their candidate wins, there'll be a cloud over the victory. I wouldn't be too happy if I was their candidate.

P.

Agent Smith

I fail to see the problem. A political party want their candidate to win, I would Imagine Labour Councillors and FF Councillors Would have sent the same instructions.


I said this a few days ago. I find it very hard to see him getting a nomination. How many councils are not controlled by FF, FG or Labour? not very many...


Is it wrong that then system is like this? Yes, But I blame Bunreacht Na hÉireann.

Article 12.4.2. wrote:

Every candidate for election, not a former or retiring President, must be nominated either by:

i. not less than twenty persons, each of whom is at the time a member of one of the Houses of the Oireachtas, or

ii. by the Councils of not less than four administrative Counties (including County Boroughs) as defined by law.

or if you want to blame someone, Blame Dev.

View

Agent Smith wrote: »

I fail to see the problem. A political party want their candidate to win, I would Imagine Labour Councillors and FF Councillors Would have sent the same instructions.


I said this a few days ago. I find it very hard to see him getting a nomination. How many councils are not controlled by FF, FG or Labour? not very many...


Is it wrong that then system is like this? Yes, But I blame Bunreacht Na hÉireann.




or if you want to blame someone, Blame Dev.

Or maybe the electorate who approved it?

gavmcg92

Honestly I think that Michael D Higgins is the best candidate for the job. I am not at all a big fan of Mr.Norris. Quite frankly I am not surprised by this stance taken by Fine Gael.

DJCR

Just wondering why the words Party Politics haven't been used here.

Shame, if it was Fianna Fail doing this they would be accused of suppressing the people with a chance to voice their opinion, looking out for no one only themselves, jobs for the boys etc.....

What harm (democratically) can it do to let a percieved popular candidate amongst the people run - if it turns out he's not popular, well then he won't be elected!!

hardCopy

Not really surprising, party whips are ridiculously powerful in this country. Very hard to see how anyone could get nominated as an independent.

DJCR

hardCopy wrote: »

Not really surprising, party whips are ridiculously powerful in this country. Very hard to see how anyone could get nominated as an independent.

Either that or our individual representatives within the parties are incredibly weak !

spank_inferno

DJCR wrote: »

Either that or our individual representatives within the parties are incredibly weak !

A brown nose, a yellow belly & no spine have always been the main things needed to progress up the pecking order in Irish political party life.

Dana got nominated as an independent didnt she?

Perhaps Norris is deemed to be a much greater electoral threat than Dana was??

syklops

Is it common for Journalists to tweet about a story they are writing as they are writing it?

Sounds a bit weird to me.

gurramok

Since when is Norris a 'current favourite'? That's jumping the gun.

StupidLikeAFox

gurramok wrote: »

Since when is Norris a 'current favourite'? That's jumping the gun.

Paddy Power says so http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/next-irish-president?ev_oc_grp_ids=33552


Anyway surely once the senate elections are carried out he'll have a good few liberal minds in the to nominate him, and there are 14 independants which he might be able to sway. Maybe also the ULA, not sure what they'd make of him. He's unlikely to get Sinn Fein on board.....

leeroybrown

There's a big difference between 'not supporting' and 'actively blocking'. I would completely understand if the office of President was an active role in the running of the country, but it's not. Regardless of politicking, etc, it's pretty spineless of Fine Gael to try to actively prevent him from running a campaign and letting the people decide.

Happyman42

Is 'actively blocking' and 'not nominating' the same thing? I mean how else can they 'actively block'?
Isn't this just a matter of how The Norris campaign want to portray a fairly ordinary party political move? 'Actively Blocking' sounds so much more skullduggerish

oceanclub

http://www.longfordleader.ie/news/local/fg_set_to_oppose_senator_norris_presidential_nomination_1_2616875

The Kenagh councillor (Cllr Paddy Belton (FG)) wished Senator Norris the very best and believed that he would get the nomination through TDs.

Senator Norris replied, “I would just ask that you might, in the interest of democracy, consider the possibility of abstaining, which has happened in the past. I think that would an honourable position and perhaps that might be considered?”

Cllr Belton, in response, said, “The instructions from headquarters are to oppose you.”

“Specifically to oppose my candidature?” asked Mr Norris.

“Well the members here of Fine Gael party has to oppose your nomination,” said Cllr Belton.

In response to the Fine Gael stance, Cllr Mark Casey (Ind) said, “It’s disappointing to hear that democracy isn’t alive and well on the Fine Gael side of the house. People shouldn’t be denied the right to vote for who they want to vote for.

P.

oceanclub

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is 'actively blocking' and 'not nominating' the same thing? I mean how else can they 'actively block'?
Isn't this just a matter of how The Norris campaign want to portray a fairly ordinary party political move? 'Actively Blocking' sounds so much more skullduggerish

Er no, they are obviously not the same thing.

"Not nominating" is precisely that - not nominating the Senator, or voting for him, but not voting against the nomination.

"Actively blocking" - Fine Gael headquarters instructing their members to do all they can to ensure Norris isn't nominated including voting against any nominations and canvassing others not to vote for his nomination.

It contrasts with Norris' own stance where he actually offered to sign Marc Coleman's nomination for his TCD Seanad run, despite the fact that Marc is running against him, something Coleman was generous about on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/coleman4seanad/status/60744751439294464



P.

later12

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is 'actively blocking' and 'not nominating' the same thing?

Of course not, they may have same result but they are not interchangeable terms.

For example, if your car breaks down three miles from the nearest service station, I, a passer in my car, may take you there or refuse to take you there. However, refusing to take you there is certainly not the same as blocking your route.

end a eknny

later10 wrote: »

Of course not, they may have same result but they are not interchangeable terms.

For example, if your car breaks down three miles from the nearest service station, I, a passer in my car, may take you there or refuse to take you there. However, refusing to take you there is certainly not the same as blocking your route.

great metaphor except cant see how it has any bearing on this unless the cars where in a race in which case i cant see the other competitors stopping to bring them to the petrol station

end a eknny

i love this country david norris is favourite for president, cant switch on the radio witout somebody blubbing about the royal wedding and everybody is wetting themselves over the queens visit

bijapos

end a eknny wrote: »

i love this country david norris is favourite for president, cant switch on the radio witout somebody blubbing about the royal wedding and everybody is wetting themselves over the queens visit

Yeah well some of us have moved on you know. It is 2011 after all.

Seloth

FG are against civil partnerships and like arent they?

Not try to stir the pot but this may also have something to do with it.

dsmythy

Seloth wrote: »

FG are against civil partnerships and like arent they?

Not try to stir the pot but this may also have something to do with it.

It's got nothing to do with it.

COUCH WARRIOR

Seloth wrote: »

FG are against civil partnerships and like arent they?

Not try to stir the pot but this may also have something to do with it.

FG against civil partnerships, I wouldn't have taught so. Even if they are I'd imagine, they just want everybody in their party to be behind the party candidate and not facilitating a competitor.

Personally, I can't see why parties bother with the presidential election, I can't really see the upside. I suppose if you had an exceptional candidate the party could bask in the reflected glow of their success, but I'm not sure how much Labour benefited from Mary R. or FF from Mary M.

FF should just give their votes to Norris as the favourite running their own candidate would just be an exercise in masochism.

Nodin

Seloth wrote: »

FG are against civil partnerships and like arent they?

Not try to stir the pot but this may also have something to do with it.

Nope.

“Lucinda Creighton’s comments represent her own personal views. In 2004 Fine Gael was the first political party to call for civil partnership for same sex couples and has been fully supportive of the civil partnership legislation at all times.”
He said that if elected to government, the party was committed to “fully implementing this legislation by making changes to the Finance and Social Welfare Acts to give full effect to the rights afford to civil partners by the Civil Partnership Act 2009”.
He said Fine Gael’s election manifesto commits to this. "It also commits (on page 36) to require schools to anti-bullying policies and, in particular, strategies to combat homophobic bullying.”
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0223/breaking43.html

Seloth

Nodin wrote: »

Nope.

“Lucinda Creighton’s comments represent her own personal views. In 2004 Fine Gael was the first political party to call for civil partnership for same sex couples and has been fully supportive of the civil partnership legislation at all times.”
He said that if elected to government, the party was committed to “fully implementing this legislation by making changes to the Finance and Social Welfare Acts to give full effect to the rights afford to civil partners by the Civil Partnership Act 2009”.
He said Fine Gael’s election manifesto commits to this. "It also commits (on page 36) to require schools to anti-bullying policies and, in particular, strategies to combat homophobic bullying.”
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0223/breaking43.html

Not trying to stir the pot again but thats from a few years ago and I can recall during the GE Kenny stating they were against it.

Never mind, just saw they were against Gay marriage but not Civil Parthnership.

Personally, I can't see why parties bother with the presidential election, I can't really see the upside. I suppose if you had an exceptional candidate the party could bask in the reflected glow of their success, but I'm not sure how much Labour benefited from Mary R. or FF from Mary M.

FF should just give their votes to Norris as the favourite running their own candidate would just be an exercise in masochism.

A friend of mine involved with FF told me how many in the party are going to support Norris.

But yeah I do think its silly that partys get involved as it creates situations such as this or hatred of the person as of the party they are involved in.

end a eknny

bijapos wrote: »

Yeah well some of us have moved on you know. It is 2011 after all.

and your point is

dashboard_hula

end a eknny wrote: »

and your point is

Actually, what's yours? Not really sure why you're lumping in a reference to the royal wedding and herself arriving on with David Norris.

I heard about this on Facebook first - all comments regarding the "blocking" of Norris by FG were by his Facebook admin person, not Norris himself. Now I'm an enthusiastic Norris supporter for my own reasons, but it seems that:

FG instructing councillors to vote for their preferred candidate ≠ FG actively blocking another nomination.

I get the feeling someones putting legs on this...