Fianna Fail attacks democracy

MagicSean

So FF have decided not to back any candidate and to bar and member from backing a candidate independently. Am I the only one who sees this as a blatant attack on the democratic process? I've never been a fan of the party politics system but this is ridiculous.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0920/president.html

raymon

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

So FF have decided not to back any candidate and to bar and member from backing a candidate independently. Am I the only one who sees this as a blatant attack on the democratic process? I've never been a fan of the party politics system but this is ridiculous.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0920/president.html

They are just working within the rules .

FF do not want Norris to get through

FF are sneaky and dishonest , but not undemocratic.

Manach

If FF had supported Senator Norris to reach the quota of 20 backers - should this have been held against him?

Riskymove

I must have missed where FG and Labour allowed a free vote!!

they could nominate a number of additional candidates...do you think they will?

Mr.Micro

Poor FF could not find any candidate to take on their toxic FF label. They would have backed Mr.Blobby only they discovered he had principles.

charlemont

Its great to see the state of their toxic party now, Micheál Martin hasn't a clue what he is at.

MagicSean

Riskymove wrote: »

I must have missed where FG and Labour allowed a free vote!!

they could nominate a number of additional candidates...do you think they will?

No. But like I said I've never been a fan of the party political system. I think it is extrememly undemocratic. But at least they put forward a candidate for us to make the choice.

Zubeneschamali

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Am I the only one who sees this as a blatant attack on the democratic process?

I think it's more of a heroin overdose in a back alley behind the skip of the democratic process, after waving the dirty needle at poor old Uncle Gaybo earlier in the campaign.

Fr Tod Umptious

I think FF did the right thing today.

They had already decided not to run a candidate, if they had run one it should have been Crwoley who would have been a decent pick seeing as he is not tainted with the actions of the past 14 years.

But they did not and if they did suddenly decided to make a populist move like backing someone else or allowing their members to back someone else then it would have stunk of indecisiveness and pandering to the 'opinion polls'

It was Crowley or no one for FF and I am glad for them that they stuck with no one when they had made that decision a few weeks ago.

wnolan1992

It's not an "attack on democracy". FF are exercising their democratic right not to nominate. Whoever they nominated would have inevitably been punished by the electorate for the sins of the past, regardless of how suitable the candidate was. By not nominating, it allows FF to concentrate on being effective opposition in the Dail without getting caught up in the farce that is this Presidential election.

thebman

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

No. But like I said I've never been a fan of the party political system. I think it is extrememly undemocratic. But at least they put forward a candidate for us to make the choice.

Don't worry though, we voted for change. Any day now ... ... ...

We are waiting FG? Political reform???

joolsveer

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

.....................
They had already decided not to run a candidate, if they had run one it should have been Crwoley who would have been a decent pick seeing as he is not tainted with the actions of the past 14 years.............................

Was Crowley not a member of Fianna Fail for the last couple of governments? If he was a member of the club he should share in their bouquets and brickbats.

wnolan1992

thebman wrote: »

Don't worry though, we voted for change. Any day now ... ... ...

We are waiting FG? Political reform???

We'll be waiting a while longer, they need to fob us off with the diversion of abolishing the Seanad first......

Fr Tod Umptious

joolsveer wrote: »

Was Crowley not a member of Fianna Fail for the last couple of governments? If he was a member of the club he should share in their bouquets and brickbats.

He has been an MEP for years, hidden away in Europe, never been a TD, and thus he would not be as toxic to the general public as former TDs or senators

Zubeneschamali

wnolan1992 wrote: »

IBy not nominating, it allows FF to concentrate on being effective opposition in the Dail without getting caught up in the farce that is this Presidential election.

No, by not running, they cede the position of main opposition party to SF.

mcmoustache

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

So FF have decided not to back any candidate and to bar and member from backing a candidate independently. Am I the only one who sees this as a blatant attack on the democratic process? I've never been a fan of the party politics system but this is ridiculous.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0920/president.html

The answer is in your OP. Even though the presidency is supposed to be above party politics, the election is far from it.

I agree that this is very undemocratic (reducing choice for the electorate) but it's not surprising. Party politics means acting in the interests of the party and not in the interests of the country )unless there's a dependency or an overlap).

wnolan1992

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, by not running, they cede the position of main opposition party to SF.

I disagree. The presidency is supposed to be a-political. So just because SF are putting forward a candidate and FF aren't doesn't automatically mean that SF will suddenly overtake FF. Don't get me wrong, there is a minor risk of that happening, but it would be largely due to other factors and not just this issue.

Plus, while SF are getting involved in the furore surrounding the presidetntiaal election, FF can actual focus on the issues that actually matter.

Coillte_Bhoy

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I think FF did the right thing today.

They had already decided not to run a candidate, if they had run one it should have been Crwoley who would have been a decent pick seeing as he is not tainted with the actions of the past 14 years.

What??? He has been a member of their parliamentary party for all that time. I dont ever remember hearing him use his prominent position to question any of the Govt policies in that time.

Coillte_Bhoy

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I disagree. The presidency is supposed to be a-political. So just because SF are putting forward a candidate and FF aren't doesn't automatically mean that SF will suddenly overtake FF. Don't get me wrong, there is a minor risk of that happening, but it would be largely due to other factors and not just this issue.

Plus, while SF are getting involved in the furore surrounding the presidetntiaal election, FF can actual focus on the issues that actually matter.

The post is non political but the electoral process is very much party political. FF have chosen to sit on the sidelines for the selection of our head of state, it is a decision that will come back to haunt them

thebman

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

The post is non political but the electoral process is very much party political. FF have chosen to sit on the sidelines for the selection of our head of state, it is a decision that will come back to haunt them

In fairness, just talking about running a candidate, it was obvious that no matter what they did, it was the wrong move.

Putting forward a candidate in the party = lamb to the slaughter.
Putting forward an independent candidate = aw sure he is a celebrity candidate or secretly a FFer.
Not putting forward a candidate = sitting on the sidelines.

I fail to see which option was a win for FF, I think the current option of not doing anything is probably the right choice especially since the party is low on funds and there is a by-election coming up to fight. Better for them to focus on that.

wnolan1992

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

The post is non political but the electoral process is very much party political. FF have chosen to sit on the sidelines for the selection of our head of state, it is a decision that will come back to haunt them

But if you see it from their point of view, which would do more damage to the party? Staying out of the race because they can't field a candidate who has a realistic chance, or getting crushed in an election only months after their last drubbing?

What would them nominating Crowley have achieved? It would have been nominating for the sake of nominating. We already have enough candidates for the sake of candidates in this race, we didn't need another. There is a case to be made that they should have been let freely vote for whoever individuals thought should be on the ballot, (David Norris for example) but that could have damaged the party even more because it could have caused further divisions.

Godge

wnolan1992 wrote: »

But if you see it from their point of view, which would do more damage to the party? Staying out of the race because they can't field a candidate who has a realistic chance, or getting crushed in an election only months after their last drubbing?

What would them nominating Crowley have achieved? It would have been nominating for the sake of nominating. We already have enough candidates for the sake of candidates in this race, we didn't need another. There is a case to be made that they should have been let freely vote for whoever individuals thought should be on the ballot, (David Norris for example) but that could have damaged the party even more because it could have caused further divisions.

From FF's point of view, it was a foolish decision not to run Crowley. Yes, he wouldn't have won but the target should have been to raise his vote above their general election disaster. If he got there, they could say the tide has turned. If he didn't, they could say it was just a presidential election.

I think he could have done it, he would have got a big personal vote in Munster, especially Cork.

anymore

Quite frankly FF have done everyone a service by staying out of the election. The drubbing they received at the elections means I think that the most approrpriate thing for them to do is to go and reflect for a good long period.
NO political part actually has a duty to field a candidate and it seems those who want to treat this as some kind of a lack of patriotism are really infuriated that their particular candidate has not got FF backing.

wnolan1992

Godge wrote: »

From FF's point of view, it was a foolish decision not to run Crowley. Yes, he wouldn't have won but the target should have been to raise his vote above their general election disaster. If he got there, they could say the tide has turned. If he didn't, they could say it was just a presidential election.

I think he could have done it, he would have got a big personal vote in Munster, especially Cork.

I don't know that he would have got that big a vote to be honest....

But if we leave party politics aside, and focus just on the presidential race, it probably is a good thing that they didn't nominate someone, just my opinion, but I don't think Crowley would make a good president, and we already have a good number of those candidates, Mitchell and McGuinness for starters (just my opinion please don't anyone get pissy over that).

johnners2981

Riskymove wrote: »

I must have missed where FG and Labour allowed a free vote!!

they could nominate a number of additional candidates...do you think they will?

I thought Gilmore said Labour wouldn't just vote for a labour candidate unlike ff and fg.

I don't see how this is democratic and even though they are not breaking the rules it doesn't mean its right. There are a lot of rules that need changing

wnolan1992

johnners2981 wrote: »

I thought Gilmore said Labour wouldn't just vote for a labour candidate unlike ff and fg.

I don't see how this is democratic and even though they are not breaking the rules it doesn't mean its right. There are a lot of rules that need changing

The whip system anyone?

johnsgone

it really says very little for the party that they did not put a person forward, ironically by doing so they will increase the sf vote