Norris to throw his hat back in?

Duke Leonal Felmet

I heard a rumour that he will announce this on the Late Late Show.

Is it cods-wallop?

Teclo

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I heard a rumour that he will announce this on the Late Late Show.

Is it cods-wallop?

A sad old queen looking for attention.


and yes, the Late Late Show is codswallop

Sunnyisland

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I heard a rumour that he will announce this on the Late Late Show.

Is it cods-wallop?

Dont know but its a bit fishy.

Rubik.

He has the backing of around 12 oireachtas members, but I can't see where the other 8 or so he'll need will come from. Getting 4 councils to endorse him at this stage would be equally difficult. Can't see it happening.

dvpower

So the Sunday Indo have a front page headline saying he is running. Then on Monday morning, the Irish Indo have a front page headline saying that he isn't.

I'm looking forward to tomorrows paper for the latest chapter in this fiction.

dvpower

Teclo wrote: »

A sad old queen looking for attention.


and yes, the Late Late Show is codswallop

Does his sexuality have to come into every discussion about Norris?:mad:

unitedrover

I dont think he'll be able to get enough backing at this stage.....but if he does get to run he'll walk it.

JabbaTheHut

unitedrover wrote: »

I dont think he'll be able to get enough backing at this stage.....but if he does get to run he'll walk it.

Surely if that's the case, he'll have no problem getting the backing he needs.

Teclo

dvpower wrote: »

Does his sexuality have to come into every discussion about Norris?:mad:

A risk you take when spend 35 years telling everyone about it.

Rubik.

Teclo wrote: »

A risk you take when spend 35 years telling everyone about it.

As a gay man taking the Irish Government to court over the criminalisation of homosexual acts, and winning, it was bound to come up from time to time.:rolleyes:

phantom_lord

JabbaTheHut wrote: »

Surely if that's the case, he'll have no problem getting the backing he needs.

The reverse I think.

dsmythy

Flip

Flop

Zubeneschamali

JabbaTheHut wrote: »

Surely if that's the case, he'll have no problem getting the backing he needs.

If (for the sake of argument) he's a sure winner in the election, then Labour, FG and the backers of Gallagher and Davis can be expected to try to stop him getting into the race, as he'd beat their candidates.

I can't see FF or SF backing Norris, can you?

Fr Tod Umptious

unitedrover wrote: »

I dont think he'll be able to get enough backing at this stage.....but if he does get to run he'll walk it.

Not a chance.

He has been fatally wounded by his own ambiguous stance on paedophilia and apparently there are more revelations to come out.

There would have been a large number of people like myself who would have considered voting for him but now will to because I honesly do not trust him.

The presidential race is very personal beacuse the candidates can not decide policy, and in a race like this Norris will be eaten alive.

nkay1985

I hope he at least gets the chance to be on the ballot paper. If more people want him than anyone else, then he should be president. If they don't, he shouldn't. But for the people to not have that option open to them is bad form.

Eoghan Harris had a good rant about it on Newstalk Breakfast this morning. Called it a denial of democracy or something similar.

Fr Tod Umptious

nkay1985 wrote: »

I hope he at least gets the chance to be on the ballot paper. If more people want him than anyone else, then he should be president. If they don't, he shouldn't. But for the people to not have that option open to them is bad form.

Eoghan Harris had a good rant about it on Newstalk Breakfast this morning. Called it a denial of democracy or something similar.

There is a defined process for getting into the race.

Norris is a seasoned campaigner and a career politician, the nomination process should not be overwhelming to someone like him.

But he is not going to get nominated because he does not have the required support for the nominating bodies.

So don't blame the system for this one.

Fratton Fred

If 40% of voters want him to be president, then it makes a mockery of the term "Republic" if he can't run.

I thought the idea was that every person has the chance to run for the highest office in the land, not just one that the political parties feel would be convenient.

Surely if the Presidents constitutional role is to effectively keep an eye on the government, the political parties should have no say in who gets the job.

Fr Tod Umptious

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If 40% of voters want him to be president, then it makes a mockery of the term "Republic" if he can't run.

I thought the idea was that every person has the chance to run for the highest office in the land, not just one that the political parties feel would be convenient.

Surely if the Presidents constitutional role is to effectively keep an eye on the government, the political parties should have no say in who gets the job.

But you have to have some sort of nomination process rather than let every man woman or child run for the election.

Mary Davis and Sean Gallagher are not political individuals and they have successfully made it on to the ballot paper, as did Derek Nally back 1997.

So what do you suggest, nominate based on a Indo opinion poll ?

Sure why not use a TV3 Expose text poll

RachaelVO

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But you have to have some sort of nomination process rather than let every man woman or child run for the election.

Mary Davis and Sean Gallagher are not political individuals and they have successfully made it on to the ballot paper, as did Derek Nally back 1997.

So what do you suggest, nominate based on a Indo opinion poll ?

Sure why not use a TV3 Expose text poll

You are of course correct, yes there does have to be something in place, otherwise god only knows who could potentially be president... BERTIE??? Jaysus that would be dire!

I think it does need a huge revision. It belonged to the democracy of it's conception, but not anymore! It's not gonna change for this election though, which is unfortunate, as I personally would like to see DN on the ballot.

dvpower

Teclo wrote: »

A risk you take when spend 35 years telling everyone about it.

So, why did you bring it up this time? What were you hoping to add to the discussion by describing him as a queen?

dvpower

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So what do you suggest, nominate based on a Indo opinion poll ?

I'd suggest that the people who do have the power to put him on the paper (the councillers and the Oireachtas members) would take into account his popular support when making their decisions.

If a man who has such a high level of popular support cannot get a nomination, it does call the nominations process into question.

EoghanConway

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Sure why not use a TV3 Expose text poll

Great idea, I will pass your suggestion along.

anymore

dvpower wrote: »

I'd suggest that the people who do have the power to put him on the paper (the councillers and the Oireachtas members) would take into account his popular support when making their decisions.

If a man who has such a high level of popular support cannot get a nomination, it does call the nominations process into question.

I suspect that those Tds and Councillors will have taken into account that Mr Norris could not even keep his election workers loyal to him once they has an opportunity to have a closer look at his 30 year record - why would Tds jeopardize thier own re-election chances on behalf of a man who cannot even keep the loyalty of some of his closest advisers.

anymore

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If 40% of voters want him to be president, then it makes a mockery of the term "Republic" if he can't run.

I thought the idea was that every person has the chance to run for the highest office in the land, not just one that the political parties feel would be convenient.

Surely if the Presidents constitutional role is to effectively keep an eye on the government, the political parties should have no say in who gets the job.

Could I suggest you read through a copy of our Constitution ? Happly the framers of the Constitution had the sense to anticiapte mob rule.

tfitzgerald

He is out (forgive the pun) and he should stay out . I don't think he has done the gay community and favours

donalg1

He is a bit of a wally really and i cant imagine him to be a good representative for Ireland, and i can only imagine what will come out about him if he does decide to run.

But then if he wants to run and can get the backing he needs well then he should go for it and let the people decide!!!

dvpower

anymore wrote: »

I suspect that those Tds and Councillors will have taken into account that Mr Norris could not even keep his election workers loyal to him once they has an opportunity to have a closer look at his 30 year record - why would Tds jeopardize thier own re-election chances on behalf of a man who cannot even keep the loyalty of some of his closest advisers.

When TDs, Senators and Councillers are coming to a completely different view to the people based on exactly the same information, it does call their role in the nominations process into question.

My personal opinion is that Norris should stay out of the race, but lets try to seperate personal views of Norris from the question of a person with substantial popular support not having that support reflected in the process.

It will damage the mandate of the next President is Norris wants to run, and he had substantial popular support but he doesn't get into the race.

anymore

dvpower wrote: »

When TDs, Senators and Councillers are coming to a completely different view to the people based on exactly the same information, it does call their role in the nominations process into question.

My personal opinion is that Norris should stay out of the race, but lets try to seperate personal views of Norris from the question of a person with substantial popular support not having that support reflected in the process.

It will damage the mandate of the next President is Norris wants to run, and he had substantial popular support but he doesn't get into the race.

How can one vote for a candidate without having personal views of him/ her ????????
That is as silly as Norris avoiding answering questions about his views on specific subjects/issues by saying we should look at his 30 year record. I believe his ' popular support' arises a good deal from the widespread censorship that has been applied in the media.

Fr Tod Umptious

dvpower wrote: »

When TDs, Senators and Councillers are coming to a completely different view to the people based on exactly the same information, it does call their role in the nominations process into question.

My personal opinion is that Norris should stay out of the race, but lets try to seperate personal views of Norris from the question of a person with substantial popular support not having that support reflected in the process.

It will damage the mandate of the next President is Norris wants to run, and he had substantial popular support but he doesn't get into the race.

I heard on the radio last week an interesting fact.

This time 14 years ago the Labour party candidate had a 40%= poll rating

On election day they got < 10% of the vote.

So I would read as much into the 40% of the people want Norris idea.

dvpower

anymore wrote: »

How can one vote for a candidate without having personal views of him/ her ????????

I'm not talking about voting for him. I'm talking about nominating him.

The purpose of any nominations process is to weed out the no hopers, and Norris, like it or not, would have a reasonable shout at it.
The TDs, senators and councillers do have a responsibility to reflect the views of the people. Their job is not to vote for a President - that's our job.

If the current process doesn't allow a candidate with the level of support that Norris has (any candidate, not specifically Norris), then the current process is not working well.

anymore wrote: »

That is as silly as Norris avoiding answering questions about his views on specific subjects/issues by saying we should look at his 30 year record. I believe his ' popular support' arises a good deal from the widespread censorship that has been applied in the media.

And these are all questions for a campaign. I'm really on about the entry criteria to the race.

dvpower

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I heard on the radio last week an interesting fact.

This time 14 years ago the Labour party candidate had a 40%= poll rating

On election day they got < 10% of the vote.

So I would read as much into the 40% of the people want Norris idea.

Are you saying Michael D should not be allowed to run?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So I would read as much into the 40% of the people want Norris idea.

On what basis do you read this?

Fr Tod Umptious

dvpower wrote: »

Are you saying Michael D should not be allowed to run?


On what basis do you read this?

Opinion polls can not be reliable.

Therefore to base a theory that Norris should be nominated cos he had 40% support is a bit of a stretch.

Before he pulled out he was still 5 short of a nomination and no local authorities had backed him. At the same time Davis and Gallagher had support from 4 local authorities each (and that was confirmed yesterday).

dvpower

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Opinion polls can not be reliable.

Norris has shown good support in poll after poll, carried out by reputable polling organisations with good track records.
To suggest that they are not a broad indicator of his support is laughable.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Before he pulled out he was still 5 short of a nomination and no local authorities had backed him. At the same time Davis and Gallagher had support from 4 local authorities each (and that was confirmed yesterday).

This goes to exactly the point I'm making - the nominations process does not appear to be representing the wishes of the people.

Fr Tod Umptious

dvpower wrote: »

Norris has shown good support in poll after poll, carried out by reputable polling organisations with good track records.
To suggest that they are not a broad indicator of his support is laughable.


This goes to exactly the point I'm making - the nominations process does not appear to be representing the wishes of the people.

So do you think that his rating would remain at 40% + if we were in a full blow campaign, where all the details about what he has or had not done in the past came out

As I said before he is a professional political who knows the system, if he cannot organize the required support amoungst his own peers then he really should not be in the race.

Or do you suggest TDs, senators and local authorities just nominate people that are popular ?

dvpower

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So do you think that his rating would remain at 40% + if we were in a full blow campaign, where all the details about what he has or had not done in the past came out

I don't know (nor care for the purpose of this), but I do think he should have the opportunity, given his current level of popular support, to get a chance to run.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

As I said before he is a professional political who knows the system, if he cannot organize the required support amoungst his own peers then he really should not be in the race.

I think its anti democratic if a person with demonstable popular support amongst a wide set of peers (the people of Ireland) cannot get a nomination from a narrow set of peers (TDs, senators, councillers).

Try and seperate out Norris from the wider question of the point of the nominations process.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Or do you suggest TDs, senators and local authorities just nominate people that are popular ?

It should be a consideration. They are our representatives, not our masters.
Remember that the actual decision of who is going to be President is based on popularity.

Duke Leonal Felmet

If you get 10,000 signatures on a petition, you should be allowed to run. Simple and fair.

Fratton Fred

anymore wrote: »

Could I suggest you read through a copy of our Constitution ? Happly the framers of the Constitution had the sense to anticiapte mob rule.

Mob rule? Is that the same mob rule that created this state?

I think democracy is the correct term.

Kinski

Sheez, just let the guy run...the electorate should decide whether he's fit to be President or not.

Son Of A Vidic

Please God this can't be true? The guy rightfully withdrew because he knew what he did was wrong. Does he think it is all better now? Because it's not, his actions merely illustrated he is no different than the rest of the 'shower'. If he does re-enter the race? It will be a two fingers to the ordinary man/woman on the street.

Godge

dvpower wrote: »

I'd suggest that the people who do have the power to put him on the paper (the councillers and the Oireachtas members) would take into account his popular support when making their decisions.

If a man who has such a high level of popular support cannot get a nomination, it does call the nominations process into question.

If you had put Dustin the Turkey in the opinion poll instead of Norris, I reckon he would have got 30%. Should councillors consider him?

Why do we elect representatives? To make decisions for us, the right decisions in the long run, without being swayed by whatever fad is current at the time.

dvpower

Godge wrote: »

If you had put Dustin the Turkey in the opinion poll instead of Norris, I reckon he would have got 30%. Should councillors consider him?

Don't be daft.

Godge

Godge wrote: »

If you had put Dustin the Turkey in the opinion poll instead of Norris, I reckon he would have got 30%. Should councillors consider him?

Why do we elect representatives? To make decisions for us, the right decisions in the long run, without being swayed by whatever fad is current at the time.

Is that not the backbone of democracy? No matter how wrong it is?

Liam Byrne

Rubik. wrote: »

As a gay man taking the Irish Government to court over the criminalisation of homosexual acts, and winning, it was bound to come up from time to time.:rolleyes:

It was bound to come up, but from the comments by most (not all, but most) of his supporters it's the only reason that they're voting for him.

I think his sexuality is more of an "issue" with his supporters than with the rest of us.

walrusgumble

unitedrover wrote: »

I dont think he'll be able to get enough backing at this stage.....but if he does get to run he'll walk it.

Where do you base that on? There is a big difference between an poll of a view, and the privacy of a polling booth. How does he fair in say, the bible belt of the country (for all the wrong reasons for refuse him, may I add), or the rural areas?

His not that left wing (which is probably good for him), he has not really stood or made his opinion public on relevant bread n butter issues during his time in the Senand, some of his speeches are good, even amusing, but roaring and shouting does not mean he is good.


Whether one likes it or not the Constitution is Republican (in Irish Republican sense) in tone (big exclusion of Article 2 and 3 - look at the Preamble), Official Ireland accepts its history warts and all, yet, he is preceived that if he had his own way Ireland would still be in the British Commonwealth.

Same guy who years ago, allegedly wanted to put up gates and privatize his home area in North of the City?

How can one really take someone serious (without being too stiff) who tries to emulate a writer and characters of fiction?

I am not convinced with Norris, (nothing to do with his private life, even that mess earlier - I find it highly hypocritical of politicians to take could have hung him on that considering the many letters written by them on behalf of johnny etc for the courts on charges of assault etc)

Fr Tod Umptious

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Please God this can't be true? The guy rightfully withdrew because he knew what he did was wrong. Does he think it is all better now? Because it's not, his actions merely illustrated he is no different than the rest of the 'shower'. If he does re-enter the race? It will be a two fingers to the ordinary man/woman on the street.

I don't get that ?

Norris never had the support for a nomination in the first place, so how is he giving two fingers to the man/woman on the street ?

By all accounts he is popular with the man/woman on the street at the moment

Fr Tod Umptious

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It was bound to come up, but from the comments by most (not all, but most) of his supporters it's the only reason that they're voting for him.

I think his sexuality is more of an "issue" with his supporters than with the rest of us.

It reminds me on the US election in 2008.

IMO it was a racist election beacuse all the blacks came out and voted for Obama, just cos he was black.

Zubeneschamali

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I think his sexuality is more of an "issue" with his supporters than with the rest of us.

Which is why the second post in this thread called him a sad old queen. Right.

anymore

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Mob rule? Is that the same mob rule that created this state?

I think democracy is the correct term.

You seem confused ! Is our democratic system ' democaratic' or ' undemocratic ' ?

nkay1985

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Please God this can't be true? The guy rightfully withdrew because he knew what he did was wrong. Does he think it is all better now? Because it's not, his actions merely illustrated he is no different than the rest of the 'shower'. If he does re-enter the race? It will be a two fingers to the ordinary man/woman on the street.

Surely, seeing as he has such a high level of popular support, him not getting nominated is a two fingers to the ordinary man and woman on the street from the politicians?

This is not about whether you like David Norris or not; it's about the people of this country being allowed to choose whether they want to elect him or not. To be denied that opportunity is ridiculous in the extreme.

anymore

walrusgumble wrote: »

Where do you base that on? There is a big difference between an poll of a view, and the privacy of a polling booth. How does he fair in say, the bible belt of the country (for all the wrong reasons for refuse him, may I add), or the rural areas?

His not that left wing (which is probably good for him), he has not really stood or made his opinion public on relevant bread n butter issues during his time in the Senand, some of his speeches are good, even amusing, but roaring and shouting does not mean he is good.


Whether one likes it or not the Constitution is Republican (in Irish Republican sense) in tone (big exclusion of Article 2 and 3 - look at the Preamble), Official Ireland accepts its history warts and all, yet, he is preceived that if he had his own way Ireland would still be in the British Commonwealth.

Same guy who years ago, allegedly wanted to put up gates and privatize his home area in North of the City?

How can one really take someone serious (without being too stiff) who tries to emulate a writer and characters of fiction?

I am not convinced with Norris, (nothing to do with his private life, even that mess earlier - I find it highly hypocritical of politicians to take could have hung him on that considering the many letters written by them on behalf of johnny etc for the courts on charges of assault etc)

When i first sarting posting on Norris, I focussed on his attitude to ordinary issues on which he was supposed to have set out his opinions in various letters and on his site. What I found was evasiveness on a scale that would have made A FF er blush. The man was clearly not the person I had supposed him to be. Any candidate would could say that he wouldnt support a cut in the Presidential salary because a President " from a working class background might need the money" is beneath contempt. Norris is just another FF clone who happens to be articulate and a little bit culturred. He has repeatedly projected himself as a ' Human rights' campaigner, so knowing he had a holiday property on Cyrus, I asked the question what his record on denouncing the Turkish illegal occupation of part of Cyprus. I was unable to find any answers to that on Google and i am still waiting for an answer from his supporters.
You referred to his wanting to lock off his home area, how can he reconcile this with his desire to a representative ' of the people' ?

Mongarra

He dropped out of the race because of letters or a letter he had written asking for special treatment (maybe a reduced sentence, leniency or some similar easing of punishment) for a very close friend convicted of a crime.

Has something new come to light to change this? If not, when the circumstances have not changed what makes his candidature more legitimate now than it was when he dropped out?