A President at 77

Cicero

In light of the current news story surrounding the former Radio Eireann GB Hour host "considering" running for presidential election, I got to thinking

- is 77 too old to be setting out on the 7 year post as President of Ireland?

For me, it depends on what you want to see your president doing- I feel that currently, we need a president with energy, with business sense, who will travel a great deal to represent Ireland on the world stage in order to bring new business into the country and show Ireland in a good light.

Maybe 10 years ago, someone like GB would have been fine as a "figure head" statesman cutting ribbons and the like but he doesn't strike me as the sort of figure-head Ireland needs right now.

I think Garret Fitzgerald would have had that "unstopable" ability and energy and would have made a fine president starting out aged 77.

Edit- This is an "age" related question, not a political one, considering the forum. Thanks.

looksee

No- ability to do the job is all that matters regardless of age

Regardless of his age I would not like to see Gay Byrne as President, nor Dana, they both have too much baggage.

Rubecula

I'd prefer our next president to be closer to 60 than 80

It would not matter about age if he could do the job. The question is can he?

I doubt it simply because he retired because he couldn't do the job he was doing. A president is a president 24/7.

Condatis

I'd prefer our next president to be closer to 60 than 80

Firstly he is not too old, but he would be a disaster. Gay has little knowledge of how our political system works though he has plenty to say about it. He has no tolerance of those who do not agree with him and that would be a difficulty.

Crucially; though he is intelligent he is not an intellectual, having plenty of opinions but few ideas.

Though in his public image he appears affable in person he is something of curmudgeon – but that applies to many public figures (though not to McAleese).

Like most sycophants he is also something of a snob and that would not make him an adept diplomat – in spite of public perception he is not a 'man of the people.

In all of the above he is little different to Gay Mitchell, Michael D or Sean Gallagher.

Certainly he makes a lot of sense when he talks of archaic mores which constricted our society over the last several decades and played no small part in their erosion and that is to his credit. But that is about all that he has going for him and it is not enough.

We need somebody with ideas, courage and 'Commune tactus'.

policarp

I'm not sure that Gaybo would be all that bad.
Sure he must have learnt something during the
many years he spent interviewing polititions,
celebrities, religious and public from all walks
of life, both on the radio and T.V.
Having said that I think 77 is probably a little
too old for the position of president.
I remember DeValera at the end of his second
term, having to be taken by the arm by his Aide
de Comp because he was hardly able to walk and
was practically blind.
It put me in mind of "Are You Being Served", where
old Mr. Grace says "You're all doing very well", in
his weak old mans voice. . .

Cicero

I'd prefer our next president to be closer to 60 than 80

policarp wrote: »

I'm not sure that Gaybo would be all that bad.
Sure he must have learnt something during the
many years he spent interviewing polititions,
celebrities, religious and public from all walks
of life, both on the radio and T.V.
Having said that I think 77 is probably a little
too old for the position of president.
I remember DeValera at the end of his second
term, having to be taken by the arm by his Aide
de Comp because he was hardly able to walk and
was practically blind.
It put me in mind of "Are You Being Served", where
old Mr. Grace says "You're all doing very well", in
his weak old mans voice. . .

For me it's all about ability ....not age.....but in the times we live in, I'm looking for energy and positivity...and whoever can bring that to the Presidency gets my vote....but I haven't seen anyone yet on the list or prospective list that can achieve both...

policarp

Cicero wrote: »

For me it's all about ability ....not age.....but in the times we live in, I'm looking for energy and positivity...and whoever can bring that to the Presidency gets my vote....but I haven't seen anyone yet on the list or prospective list that can achieve both...

The President doesn't need much nowadays.
Just sign a form from the Goernment.
No discretion, just do it.

Gone Are the good old days when John Charles McQuaid and Dev were bosses and ruled the roost.

DeVore

Oi!






I'm still here you know.

DeV.

policarp

DeVore wrote: »

Oi!

I'm still here you know.

DeV.

Going for a third term, are ye ?

Cicero

I'd prefer our next president to be closer to 60 than 80

...a thread started in AH this evening asking is Michael D too old for office at 70....so far at least...there's a lot of positive comments coming from there denouncing choosing a candidate purely based on their age...considering AH would typically be under 30's mostly, I think that's quite positive...

senordingdong

Can't see it making a difference tbh...largely because I'm not sure what it is the president does exactly.

Cicero

I'd prefer our next president to be closer to 60 than 80

senordingdong wrote: »

Can't see it making a difference tbh...largely because I'm not sure what it is the president does exactly.

Possibly a lot less than the candidates are making out the office does?:p

Jellybaby1

I heard a comment on a voxpop recently on radio, the woman said "there is no quality there". I agree entirely, there really is not one of them who deserves to have the job, not one. They are only there because it is an opportunity for each one of them, and they all have their own agendas. I do not believe any one of them is there out of a sense of duty or service. I do not believe all the clap-trap they spill out daily, I could discuss each one individually but it would take too long. I begrudge giving my vote, my vote is too important to be wasted on any of them, however, having said that I will have to put 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 on the paper. My intention is to just start at No. 7 and work my way back because the only thing I know for sure is who I would prefer at that position.

Back on to the original topic - age should not be a barrier if the person can carry out the functions of the office. I know a lady in her 80's very sprightly, highly educated retired business woman, and loves to travel, and plays golf every week - she could easily do the job. In one of 'Mammy' O'Rourke's pieces on the John Murray show, she said whoever gets in will have to learn to bend their will. Not a big fan of 'Mammy' but she is right on this one.

senordingdong

That's not fair, Higgins has done alot of good things with his career.

Jellybaby1

You could say that all of them have done 'good things with their careers', I still don't think any of them should be just handed the presidency based on that. There are a lot of people who are successful in their careers but they won't be getting a presidency at the end of it - just doing the job you are paid for is just not enough for me.

senordingdong

Well, specifically I was referring to his work with the LGBT community, his job as a university lecturer for 28 years, he won the Sean McBride peace award, he helped establish the Irish Film Board and TG4, and he is a published poet and Irish language advocate.

Based on what the president does in the public eye I think he fits the role perfectly.

Plus, I think a labour president would make a good balance to the FG Taoiseach.

In regards to the comment made by the woman on voxpop, I would rather everyone voting to scrap the presidency altogether, but if we have to go vote for the best of a bad bunch, than my money is on Higgins.