Fine Gael an embarassment to modern politics

Downlinz

Catering for the denial of democracy to prevent a peoples candidate entering a presidential race. Embarrassing for everyone who gave any support to them in the last general election, truly a party operating in the dark ages.

Sully

Welcome to the world of politics. Its a competition remember.

danmanw8

And your view of labour? All labour cllrs on Dublin South voted against Norris. Only some FG.
What's your view there? Can't leave them off the hook!!!
Labour have more to fear from Norris than any other party, he will take more votes from the MDH pool than anyone else. This is plain to see the way the opinion polls changed when Norris was in-out-in the race.
Personally I'd like to see Norris in the campaign.

mikemac

People's candidate?

He is part of the old boys networks, voted in by a tiny minority for the TCD seat and has decades to build contacts and support.
And still could not do it.

Has he ever proposed to get the system changed? Ever make a speech?

Mongarra

I have no affiliations to any political party but is a party not entitled to turn down a request for support from a non-member when the party already has its own chosen candidate?

listermint

OP i think you meant.


'Ireland' and embarrassment to modern politics.....

danmanw8

mikemac wrote: »

People's candidate?

He is part of the old boys networks, voted in by a tiny minority for the TCD seat and has decades to build contacts and support.
And still could not do it.

Has he ever proposed to get the system changed? Ever make a speech?

It would be great if he got the nomination and let the "PEOPLE" decide. If he gets elected then he's the "people's candidate" and if he doesn't then he's not. That's democracy
The political parties are leaving themsleves open to accusations of discrimination by not giving him the nomination. Let the people reject him if they so wish.

Rookster

Norris is not the people's candidate. He is part of the establishment. In fact the means by which he gets elected to the Seanad is corrupt in that it excludes the vast majority of the people from voting. He wrote seven letters to get a child abuser off the hook. That is enough for me.

vellocet

I'm no FG supporter, but why pick on them? They have selected a candidate and committed to get them voted in. That's the nature of politics.

If anyone should be criticised it is FF who aren't running a candidate and still imposing a whip.

Long and short of it, if Norris cannot get 20 of his collegues to support him, he doesn't deserve to be in the race. They are the rules.

Downlinz

mikemac wrote: »

People's candidate?

He is part of the old boys networks, voted in by a tiny minority for the TCD seat and has decades to build contacts and support.
And still could not do it.

Has he ever proposed to get the system changed? Ever make a speech?

Norris has proposed to get the system changed. In the early stages of his campaign he spoke out quite strongly against how the system allows the establishment to control things and how he'd rather a system of a certain number of citizen signatures allowed entry.

mikemac

Downlinz wrote: »

Norris has proposed to get the system changed. .

When though?
If it was a decade ago well that's something. He has been there long enough to know how to propose something

If he waited until the campaign started and realized the task he was facing, well of course he is going to want the rules changed if he is struggling

ballsymchugh

Downlinz wrote: »

Norris has proposed to get the system changed. In the early stages of his campaign he spoke out quite strongly against how the system allows the establishment to control things and how he'd rather a system of a certain number of citizen signatures allowed entry.

the signature system will end up in tears though. it'll start facebook campaigns to get ronnie o'brien nominated, or more importantly, give idiots a platform to shout from.
that is, unless it's a hell of a lot of signatures.

HellsAngel

Downlinz wrote: »

Norris has proposed to get the system changed. In the early stages of his campaign he spoke out quite strongly against how the system allows the establishment to control things and how he'd rather a system of a certain number of citizen signatures allowed entry.

His a TCD selected Senator, if that's not the how "the system allows the establishment to control things " I don't know what is.

thebman

ballsymchugh wrote: »

the signature system will end up in tears though. it'll start facebook campaigns to get ronnie o'brien nominated, or more importantly, give idiots a platform to shout from.
that is, unless it's a hell of a lot of signatures.

A system that allows for the nomination system to be questioned by petition is a much better system IMO.

IE council nominates Dana, petition filed with 40% signatures of people in area forces council to reconsider their nomination.

Doesn't mean they will nominate the person the people want second time round but at least it offers some balance to the existing nomination system where the candidate topping all opinion polls is struggling to even get nominated.

Should say FG abstained in my area after the top FG candidate in the election had a meeting with the councilors on the issue so they are only saying they can't vote for Norris it seems, it is up to them to decide to abstain or vote against.

Statistician

vellocet wrote: »

I'm no FG supporter, but why pick on them? They have selected a candidate and committed to get them voted in. That's the nature of politics.

If anyone should be criticised it is FF who aren't running a candidate and still imposing a whip. .

FF = FG.
These are one and the same party. Their policies etc, are identical.

They can't officially combine the two wings because it would look too much like a one party state.

anymore

Downlinz wrote: »

Catering for the denial of democracy to prevent a peoples candidate entering a presidential race. Embarrassing for everyone who gave any support to them in the last general election, truly a party operating in the dark ages.

Fine Gael are an embarassment for not supporting Norris; FF are undemocratic for not supporting Norris, independent who donot support Norrs are unfair,...anyone detecting a pattern here ?

anymore

Downlinz wrote: »

Norris has proposed to get the system changed. In the early stages of his campaign he spoke out quite strongly against how the system allows the establishment to control things and how he'd rather a system of a certain number of citizen signatures allowed entry.

Can you tell me at what point during his 2o year tenure in the Seanad, he began campaigning to have the system changed ? He would hardly have waited until he had a personal interest would he ?

vellocet

Statistician wrote: »

FF = FG.
These are one and the same party. Their policies etc, are identical.

They can't officially combine the two wings because it would look too much like a one party state.

All the more reason to direct the ire at FF then?

Zubeneschamali

The embarrassment is running a plank like Mitchell, not opposing Norris.

FG, after winning 76 seats to SF's 14, and a 36% 1st preference share to SF's 10%, are going field a candidate who gets beaten by Martin McGuinness.

Shocking stuff.

Rookster

A Punishment Beating!:p

Chucky the tree

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The embarrassment is running a plank like Mitchell, not opposing Norris.

FG, after winning 76 seats to SF's 14, and a 36% 1st preference share to SF's 10%, are going field a candidate who gets beaten by Martin McGuinness.

Shocking stuff.

Running Mitchell was a bad idea, but no matter who they ran they would lose to McGuinness.

anymore

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The embarrassment is running a plank like Mitchell, not opposing Norris.

FG, after winning 76 seats to SF's 14, and a 36% 1st preference share to SF's 10%, are going field a candidate who gets beaten by Martin McGuinness.

Shocking stuff.

Whilst you may regard Mitchell as a plank, the reality is that he has both entered both national and European elections and been elected as a TD and MEP. And he has managed to do so without having the Independent Group as his ' backer'That is how democracy works. Mr Norris has never contested a by election, general election or euro election preferring the safe seat in Trinity. So which of the two is more ' democratic' ?

mikemac

Should have put Mairéad McGuinness MEP forward instead of Mitchell

Zubeneschamali

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Running Mitchell was a bad idea, but no matter who they ran they would lose to McGuinness.

Why? Given that Michael D. will beat McGuinness, and Norris too, if he gets on the ballot, why can't FG run someone electable?

Chucky the tree

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why? Given that Michael D. will beat McGuinness, and Norris too, if he gets on the ballot, why can't FG run someone electable?

Who do they have that is electable?

Zubeneschamali

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Who do they have that is electable?

Ah, you mean they just don't have a good candidate, rather than they would lose to SF no matter what candidate they ran.

As to who they should have run, I don't know. Avril Doyle?

anymore

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ah, you mean they just don't have a good candidate, rather than they would lose to SF no matter what candidate they ran.

As to who they should have run, I don't know. Avril Doyle?

Enda Kenny !
Failing that they should have got 'Old Blueshirt' himself, George Hook !

Chucky the tree

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ah, you mean they just don't have a good candidate, rather than they would lose to SF no matter what candidate they ran.

As to who they should have run, I don't know. Avril Doyle?

Well pretty much the same thing. Any candidate they ran would lose to Mcguinness so they never had a good candidate to run.

Liam Byrne

anymore wrote: »

Can you tell me at what point during his 2o year tenure in the Seanad, he began campaigning to have the system changed ? He would hardly have waited until he had a personal interest would he ?

Well considering that in his letters he viewed himself as a possible future president, and that was how long ago ?

jimmycrackcorm

mikemac wrote: »

Should have put Mairéad McGuinness MEP forward instead of Mitchell

Much of a muchness TBH.

anymore

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well considering that in his letters he viewed himself as a possible future president, and that was how long ago ?

Well in the interview with Tubs, he said 15 to 20 years ago !

thebman

Isn't everyone a possible future president of Ireland? :P

If we are being purely technical about it. I know what people mean by it being cocky or whatever. Not sure I could hold that against a politician though, they are all like that or they'd never run for any election in the first place.

johngalway

Downlinz wrote: »

Catering for the denial of democracy to prevent a peoples candidate entering a presidential race. Embarrassing for everyone who gave any support to them in the last general election, truly a party operating in the dark ages.

Grow up would ya. FG are a political party running their own candidate. It doesn't benefit FG to nominate another candidate to compete against the FG candidate.

:rolleyes:

anymore

johngalway wrote: »

Grow up would ya. FG are a political party running their own candidate. It doesn't benefit FG to nominate another candidate to compete against the FG candidate.

:rolleyes:

I wonder at what point will it become a public order offence to criticise a certain candidate ?

johngalway

anymore wrote: »

I wonder at what point will it become a public order offence to criticise a certain candidate ?

I am not getting your meaning there?

Even though today I see myself voting Mitchell I agree with the comments he has the charisma of a potato. Apologies to Gay. Though I do think he has his advantages concerning his idea of running on an international platform especially with FG's grouping within the EU.

I don't mind criticism of any candidate, as long as it isn't unfair.

As for my criticism of MMG. I see him as being (is/was) necessary for NI, because that part of the island was a warzone and the IRA and Sinn Fein were part of that war.

However, The state in which I and the bulk of the voters in this election reside in is called the Republic of Ireland. And we generally tend to get along just dandy despite civil war or other politics we don't often go on killing rampages against one another.

I just don't believe MMG's explanations I guess sis what I'm saying.

I shoot as a hobby. He doesn't deny having fired a gun in his capacity as a member of the IRA.

I don't think he was firing at paper Bin Laden targets.

anymore

johngalway wrote: »

I am not getting your meaning there?

Even though today I see myself voting Mitchell I agree with the comments he has the charisma of a potato. Apologies to Gay. Though I do think he has his advantages concerning his idea of running on an international platform especially with FG's grouping within the EU.

I don't mind criticism of any candidate, as long as it isn't unfair.

As for my criticism of MMG. I see him as being (is/was) necessary for NI, because that part of the island was a warzone and the IRA and Sinn Fein were part of that war.

However, The state in which I and the bulk of the voters in this election reside in is called the Republic of Ireland. And we generally tend to get along just dandy despite civil war or other politics we don't often go on killing rampages against one another.

I just don't believe MMG's explanations I guess sis what I'm saying.

I shoot as a hobby. He doesn't deny having fired a gun in his capacity as a member of the IRA.

I don't think he was firing at paper Bin Laden targets.

Sorry I wasnt suggesting criticism of MMG might become a ' public order offence' - !

rodento

Was kenny refering to Gay Mitchell when he was talking about the publics right to know:rolleyes: