Is Michael Martins leadership in question over Gaybogate

raymon

Firstly , I am not a fan of FF or Michael Martin.

But surely his leadership is in question over the backing of Gay Byrne, someone who would have been embarrassed to have been associated with FF, while at least 3 real FFers (Crowley , o Cuiv, Hanafin) were waiting on the nod.

If was in FF I would be fuming at this shafting.

The final insult of gaybo declaring not to run surely makes Martins leadership a laughing stock.

Zimmerframe

raymon wrote: »

......surely makes Martins leadership a laughing stock.

He was that anyway.

mike65

Byrns refusal to run makes Martin look weak and desperate but well we knew that much, whether it has an effect on his position within the party is another matter. He has the job no one else really wants I'd suggest so he is safe enough for now.

LeixlipRed

This is like asking people do you think Nick Griffin should resign as leader of the BNP surely. Does anyone care who leads these people?

Denerick

That was not a 'gate' and Martins leadership is irrelevant anyway. FF are about as useful to the national discussion at the moment as the Irish Community Party.

dlofnep

As far as FF politicians go - Martin is probably the most capable to lead their party. This is a non-issue.

Lapin

"Gaybogate"



Come off it.

anymore

I wonder what Martin has got against fellow Cork man Brian Crowley ?

skelliser

It also appears that Miriam O'Callaghan was approached by FF, whether under Martin's orders or others.

Mr.Micro

Why does Mehole not run himself and give us all a good laugh when he tells us about his credibility and leadership qualities.The FF has got talent show

Alopex

dlofnep wrote: »

As far as FF politicians go - Martin is probably the most capable to lead their party. This is a non-issue.

he comes across as an arrogant prick to me. Really dislikeable disingenuous guy. though perhaps you are correct cannot think of anyone i like in that party

nesf

Alopex wrote: »

he comes across as an arrogant prick to me. Really dislikeable disingenuous guy. though perhaps you are correct cannot think of anyone i like in that party

Most likely your hatred of the party blinds you to any member's positive characteristics and magnifies negative ones.

SeanW

Ok then, tell me one thing good about anyone in Fianna Fail?

nesf

SeanW wrote: »

Ok then, tell me one thing good about anyone in Fianna Fail?

Micheal McGrath actually has an academic background relevant to his portfolio. Which makes for a nice change in the party.

mikemac

SeanW wrote: »

Ok then, tell me one thing good about anyone in Fianna Fail?

There are thousands of members, probably even a few you work with or drink with

dlofnep

Alopex wrote: »

he comes across as an arrogant prick to me. Really dislikeable disingenuous guy. though perhaps you are correct cannot think of anyone i like in that party

I'm not saying I'd vote for him, but as far as politicians in FF go - he's one of the better ones.

bmaxi

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not saying I'd vote for him, but as far as politicians in FF go - he's one of the better ones.

A dubious distinction.

juuge

Martin is no more than a waffler and totally out of his depth.

MadsL

More likely Martin gave Gaybo the nod but Gaybo couldn't keep his mouth shut until Martin squared it with the party.

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

Most likely your hatred of the party blinds you to any member's positive characteristics and magnifies negative ones.

I don't think one needs to magnify his re-instatement of perjuror O'Dea, do you ?

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't think one needs to magnify his re-instatement of perjuror O'Dea, do you ?

Depends on whether you see his hand forced by O'Dea's seniority and popularity or not.

Kinski

nesf wrote: »

Micheal McGrath actually has an academic background relevant to his portfolio. Which makes for a nice change in the party.

So did Batt O'Keeffe. Did that make him a good Minister for Education? Yeah, technocrats ftw...

nesf

Kinski wrote: »

So did Batt O'Keeffe. Did that make him a good Minister for Education? Yeah, technocrats ftw...

Actually I'd argue making a teacher or a IT lecturer head of Education is an incredibly stupid idea. Similar to making a hospital doctor head of Health.

You don't want a member of the unions having to fight with them.

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't think one needs to magnify his re-instatement of perjuror O'Dea, do you ?

Depends on whether you see his hand forced by O'Dea's seniority and popularity or not.

If he's meant to be the leader - and more specifically the leader who's going to change FF, like he pretends to be - then it shouldn't be possible to force his hand like that.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If he's meant to be the leader - and more specifically the leader who's going to change FF, like he pretends to be - then it shouldn't be possible to force his hand like that.

Eh, welcome to politics?

smellslikeshoes

raymon wrote: »

Firstly , I am not a fan of FF or Michael Martin.

But surely his leadership is in question over the backing of Gay Byrne, someone who would have been embarrassed to have been associated with FF, while at least 3 real FFers (Crowley , o Cuiv, Hanafin) were waiting on the nod.

If was in FF I would be fuming at this shafting.

The final insult of gaybo declaring not to run surely makes Martins leadership a laughing stock.

I'm sure Gaybo not running is a bit embarrassing for MM but from a long term point of view what he's been doing makes complete sense.
Any in-house FF candidate like Crowley,O' Cuiv or Hanafin is going to get a complete drubbing which would be very embarrassing for the party and show that FF are just as irrelevant now as they were at the time of the GE. If they don't run any candidate it will be just as bad if not worse for the party. Their only real solution from MM's point of view is find someone to hitch their wagon to who's popularity with the public will give them a chance at winning it.

scholar007

skelliser wrote: »

It also appears that Miriam O'Callaghan was approached by FF, whether under Martin's orders or others.

Michéal Martin Presidential Candidate List
Miriam O'Callaghan

Gay Byrne


Suggestions please.......

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

Eh, welcome to politics?

I know what you're saying, and I accept it, but if that's the case then it proves beyond doubt that FF has no intention of changing its spots.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I know what you're saying, and I accept it, but if that's the case then it proves beyond doubt that FF has no intention of changing its spots.

I disagree, I just think changing will be tough because FF (like every major party) is stuck with the same kind of political pressures before and after the event that catalysed the need for change. The Leadership of FF could have all the intentions of changing in the world but it does not change the reality they live in and the need for them to secure their base and keep the seats they already have.

jimmycrackcorm

I find it bizarre that anyone has actually made an issue over this whole Gay Byrne thing. It's a total non-event.

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

I disagree, I just think changing will be tough because FF (like every major party) is stuck with the same kind of political pressures before and after the event that catalysed the need for change.

Unfortunately they view the election as the event that showed the "need for change", rather than the actual need which is the actions of O'Dea & Callelly & Ahern.

So by reinstating O'Dea they've gotten it all wrong again - they're not interested in fixing the problem, only the result of the problem - i.e. their unpopularity.

So they're "fixing" the wrong problem.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Unfortunately they view the election as the event that showed the "need for change", rather than the actual need which is the actions of O'Dea & Callelly & Ahern.

So by reinstating O'Dea they've gotten it all wrong again - they're not interested in fixing the problem, only the result of the problem - i.e. their unpopularity.

So they're "fixing" the wrong problem.

O'Dea got reelected quite easily, thus the people obviously don't consider him to be not fit for purpose. Doesn't make any sense to me but there you go. Martin has to work with what the people elect no?

bmaxi

Heard part of an interview with former FF junior Minister Hugh Byrne on SE Radio today, I never thought I'd hear the likes from a FF politician volunteered, I should add , because the interview was about sport.
He basically admitted that the leadership of FF in recent times were crooks who were only in it for themselves and had, quote,"been bought by big business".
While I admire his candour, Hugh Byrne was a Minister in the Cabinet of probably the biggest of those crooks, hindsight is very definitely 20/20 vision. He hinted that what was needed was a clear out of those connected to that leadership, which, by extension, would include Martin.

Fred Cohen

nesf wrote: »

O'Dea got reelected quite easily, thus the people obviously don't consider him to be not fit for purpose.

don't think so

2007 19,082 first preferences

2011 6,956 first preferences only elected on the sixth ( and penultimate) count on transfers from Peter Power. Whats he going to do now he doesn't have civil servants to post out planning permissions and medical cards?

nesf

Fred Cohen wrote: »

don't think so

2007 19,082 first preferences

2011 6,956 first preferences only elected on the sixth ( and penultimate) count on transfers from Peter Power. Whats he going to do now he doesn't have civil servants to post out planning permissions and medical cards?

If you look at the figures you'll see that there wasn't a hope of him not being elected. It wasn't even close, the last two seats went 1 FF 1 Lab and neither the remaining Lab or SF candidate were within a fraction of the votes needed to challenge for either seat.

He got elected easily, not on the first count as he might have in the past but his seat was safe.

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

He got elected easily, not on the first count as he might have in the past but his seat was safe.

I agree that the level of support is inexplicable given O'Dea's track record, but basically the point remains; it only takes 7,000 votes to prevent Martin from doing the right and ethical thing.

If he'd done the right thing he might have gotten the other 12,000 votes next time around and would have been seen to respect the Dáil.

Doesn't bother me - it's his party; but it does mean that he doesn't have a leg to stand on re reform or fixing FF, and so is a joke to anyone other than the blind faithful.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I agree that the level of support is inexplicable given O'Dea's track record, but basically the point remains; it only takes 7,000 votes to prevent Martin from doing the right and ethical thing.

If he'd done the right thing he might have gotten the other 12,000 votes next time around and would have been seen to respect the Dáil.

Doesn't bother me - it's his party; but it does mean that he doesn't have a leg to stand on re reform or fixing FF, and so is a joke to anyone other than the blind faithful.

His problem is he needs to change the party without pissing off the "blind faithful" which is a very tricky thing to do. All I'm saying is that O'Dea holding a safe FF seat in an election that cost FF many of its previously safe seats means that O'Dea has to be given a place on the front bench, otherwise it could lose that seat.

If you're going to blame someone, blame the people of Limerick for electing the muppet so easily, there's no point in blaming Micheal Martin whose hands are tied because of the result pretty much.

The kind of reform and change you want to see (or more specifically at the pace you want to see it happen at) could only really happen to a party like the Greens who got absolutely wiped out in the election. Or a party that was reduced to single digit seats with all new faces.

steelcityblues

Nice to see it backfiring on him.

It was a sly way to use Gaybo - who was never a politician - to making people forget the list of FF failures for many years in government.

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

His problem is he needs to change the party without pissing off the "blind faithful" which is a very tricky thing to do.

Given what they support and where it has landed us, their opinion is less than irrelevant to me.

nesf wrote: »

If you're going to blame someone, blame the people of Limerick for electing the muppet so easily

I agree that they take part of the blame, and I'm ashamed to be sharing a city with them.

nesf wrote: »

....there's no point in blaming Micheal Martin whose hands are tied because of the result pretty much.

I don't agree. If he was genuine about wanting change he would have done the right thing.

I suspect we'll differ on this aspect of it, though, and there's no point in discussing it further because my mind will not be changed on it. We are judged by our actions and this was a perfect example of "more of the same" from FF; it doesn't matter what someone does - it'll be condoned or glossed over if it's in the interests of "the party".

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Given what they support and where it has landed us, their opinion is less than irrelevant to me.



I agree that they take part of the blame, and I'm ashamed to be sharing a city with them.



I don't agree. If he was genuine about wanting change he would have done the right thing.

I suspect we'll differ on this aspect of it, though, and there's no point in discussing it further because my mind will not be changed on it. We are judged by our actions and this was a perfect example of "more of the same" from FF; it doesn't matter what someone does - it'll be condoned or glossed over if it's in the interests of "the party".

I agree that we'll get nowhere arguing about this. My core point to you would be that it is not only change that the FF leadership needs to concern itself with but stabilising and growing the party's number of seats. It's a dual mandate not a single mandate that he has. A party that ignores this second mandate is not relevant in politics.

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

I agree that we'll get nowhere arguing about this. My core point to you would be that it is not only change that the FF leadership needs to concern itself with but stabilising and growing the party's number of seats. It's a dual mandate not a single mandate that he has. A party that ignores this second mandate is not relevant in politics.

Which is precisely why he's doing the wrong thing.

The country needs rid of the blinkered, and judging by O'Dea's own figures he's putting the "stabilising the 7,000" first and thereby killing off any chance of regaining the other 12,000.

His loss, though. As I said, no skin off my nose if he runs that particular sickening organisation into the ground.

Back on topic, I doubt that anyone would associate themselves with FF by accepting a nomination, unless maybe a few of their mates that they've bailed out.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Which is precisely why he's doing the wrong thing.

The country needs rid of the blinkered, and judging by O'Dea's own figures he's putting the "stabilising the 7,000" first and thereby killing off any chance of regaining the other 12,000.

By not stabilising the 7,000 he runs the risk of losing even more seats in the next election if the change gamble doesn't pay off. I honestly think he's caught between a rock and a hard place here.

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

By not stabilising the 7,000 he runs the risk of losing even more seats in the next election if the change gamble doesn't pay off. I honestly think he's caught between a rock and a hard place here.

Only if ethics and honesty mean nothing to him; if they did, then there would be no choice to be made.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Only if ethics and honesty mean nothing to him; if they did, then there would be no choice to be made.

What ethics or honesty? The people, not the politicians are the ones who decide whether someone is worthy of sitting in the Dáil, any party has to work with what the people elect.

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

What ethics or honesty? The people, not the politicians are the ones who decide whether someone is worthy of sitting in the Dáil, any party has to work with what the people elect.

Agreed. But if Martin really objected to O'Dea's despicable actions then he would have left him as a back-bencher.

Fred Cohen

nesf wrote: »

What ethics or honesty? The people, not the politicians are the ones who decide whether someone is worthy of sitting in the Dáil, any party has to work with what the people elect.

But it's the party that puts that someone before the people.

All I'm saying is that O'Dea holding a safe FF seat in an election that cost FF many of its previously safe seats

I disagree with you there, Willie O'Dea is holding a safe Willie O'Dea seat and if he did not have such a big personal vote I think that this seat would have gone the way of East Cork i.e. a SF win.

the FF leadership needs to concern itself with but stabilising and growing the party's number of seats.

As opposed to rediscovering its core values and redeveloping a grassroots organisation who know what they stand for.

If FF want to become relevant again the need to come up with good policies that their members believe in (not just patronage, because they will not be in a position to offer that for a long time). MM could have set down a marker by setting a high standard for his front bench and he missed that opportunity.

nesf

Fred Cohen wrote: »

But it's the party that puts that someone before the people.

It's a chicken and egg thing with established politicians. FF couldn't not run O'Dea because his personal vote meant they couldn't rely on another FF candidate to run as well in the election.

Fred Cohen wrote: »

I disagree with you there, Willie O'Dea is holding a safe Willie O'Dea seat and if he did not have such a big personal vote I think that this seat would have gone the way of East Cork i.e. a SF win.

I agree with your first point, I disagree with your second. A second Labour seat would have been more likely than a SF seat I think given very weak transfers from FF to SF with Power's exit.

Fred Cohen wrote: »

As opposed to rediscovering its core values and redeveloping a grassroots organisation who know what they stand for.

If FF want to become relevant again the need to come up with good policies that their members believe in (not just patronage, because they will not be in a position to offer that for a long time). MM could have set down a marker by setting a high standard for his front bench and he missed that opportunity.

I think MM was caught in a bind. He has to bring the party faithful along with any changes and part of that means showing respect to party members with large personal votes. I'd prefer to see more radical change in the party personally but I can understand the political need to put O'Dea on the front bench.

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

I think MM was caught in a bind. He has to bring the party faithful along with any changes and part of that means showing respect to party members with large personal votes. I'd prefer to see more radical change in the party personally but I can understand the political need to put O'Dea on the front bench.

No matter what they do ?

As I said, we'll agree to differ, but you can surely see how this comes across to the neutral observer - that FF will accept any actions by a vote-getter and therefore that implies business as usual without fear of sanction.

The core vote may overlook that, as applied to O'Dea, but anyone else would just have their opinion of FF reinforced, thereby cementing that core vote ONLY into place, never to improve.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No matter what they do ?

As I said, we'll agree to differ, but you can surely see how this comes across to the neutral observer - that FF will accept any actions by a vote-getter and therefore that implies business as usual without fear of sanction.

The core vote may overlook that, as applied to O'Dea, but anyone else would just have their opinion of FF reinforced, thereby cementing that core vote ONLY into place, never to improve.

Rock and a hard place with an established politician. If the Party HQ says don't pick him, he'll run as an Independent and suck a huge number of votes away from the official candidate. Look at Healy-Rae for instance or Micheal Lowry.

A party may not want to have to run a certain candidate with a large personal vote but they may have no choice if they want a seat in a constituency.

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

Look at Healy-Rae for instance or Micheal Lowry.

FG managed to do the right thing in Lowry's case, so it is possible.

A party may not want to have to run a certain candidate with a large personal vote but they may have no choice if they want a seat in a constituency.

They have a choice; they're just not willing to make it.

FG are no saints, but they made the right choice, which is why Martin is a lame duck.

watchingthepols

Fred Cohen wrote: »

I disagree with you there, Willie O'Dea is holding a safe Willie O'Dea seat and if he did not have such a big personal vote.....

I'm not sure if that "safe" part is accurate anymore.

He dropped something like 12,500 first preference votes in the last general election and was only elected on the sixth count.

It's a far cry from his glory days of winning double quotas on the first count.