Is Fine Gael gifting the Presidency to Labour as a Coallition Pact.

CDfm

Reflecting on Phil Hogan's attack on MMG earlier I mused that the attack on MMG would have been more appropriately levelled against Michael D Higgins.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056408041&page=3

Could it be reminiscent of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, where Brown ended up as Prime Minister because it was "his turn".

The media are alluding to something but not being explicit about it

Check this site on who is anti American

The idea that Michael D. Higgins should be President of Ireland is madness. If he became President, he would make Ireland hated in America. Americans don't realise such people exist in Ireland.


http://markhumphrys.com/irish.left.people.html#michael.d

So is Labour being gifted the Presidency and if so should the agreement be disclosed ?

Gergiev

I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that it has been gifted to O'Higgins but I'd say there are some in FG who are less than enthused by the prospect of campaigning for Mitchell who they probably realise has little or no chance of winning, especially after his performance yesterday on Dunphy's show.

Some of the more strategic thinkers in the party will know that GM is a loose cannon with the capacity to seriously undignify the office or drag it into unwanted controversy.

In those circumstances, electing O'Higgins would be the lesser of some evils from their point of view with peripheral dividends like embedding Labour in government and incentivising them to hang on for a possible 2nd term through the important year of 2016 with their man in the Aras.

I'm surprised FG don't adopt a more nuanced view of MMG seeing as he is more of a threat to FF than themselves, looking forward.

A decent, non-winning result for him would be another nail in the Warriors of Destiny coffin with little or no consequences for FG given that MMG's votes are unlikely to be available to FG in any case.

But it looks like the latent, reactionary tendency in FG has resurrected itself yet again in a new decade with a brand new windmill to tilt at...

CDfm

Gergiev wrote: »

I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that it has been gifted to O'Higgins but I'd say there are some in FG who are less than enthused by the prospect of campaigning for Mitchell who they probably realise has little or no chance of winning, especially after his performance yesterday on Dunphy's show.

So have they picked a candidate to loose.

Isn't that the same as conceding defeat?

I wonder what FG supporters think ?

Gergiev

I wouldn't go as far as to say they consciously set out to choose a losing candidate but they have been left with the poorest of the 3 who aspired to the FG nomination.

Some members of the party will not be inclined to expend much energy on Mitchell's behalf which they will identify as a losing cause.

Some of these will even be among those in the Oireachtas who voted for him as candidate because of past allegiances but have no desire to do anything more than that.

I think the ordinary members of the party will be left in a quandary as the leadership were prepared to parachute in an outside candidate (Pat Cox - I wonder how many FG meetings he has attended since joining his local branch!) and another serious contender in Mairead McGuinness was overlooked by the party so it's a challenge to bang on doors in the dark and cold evenings of October for someone who can only be regarded as an outsider in the election stakes...

nesf

I don't think they're conceding it but they're definitely being the attack dogs of the coalition partners. Which is a little strange as McG's core vote doesn't really infringe on Mitchell's core vote at all. They target completely different segments of the populace really.

Gergiev

I agree with you, nesf.

Looks to me that Mitchell has decided he is to be the one to take on the Clint Eastwood role and shoot down that evil Lee van Guinness who has come down from those lawless northern badlands to import mayhem into this well-administered paradise.

There is a belief in certain circles in the south that no one has really stood up to northern republicans and called them to account for their activities over the period of The Troubles.

But really the people have made up their minds about these issues years ago and don't need to be "re-educated" in this matter...

thebman

CDfm wrote: »

So have they picked a candidate to loose.

Isn't that the same as conceding defeat?

I wonder what FG supporters think ?

I don't think they picked a candidate to lose. I think they looked at their support in the General Election and decided they were unlikely to lose a presidential race mistaking the swing vote they got from FF's downfall as a vote that was unlikely to leave them in this election.

I think the General Election focused solely on the economy and ignored the conservative social element of FG support which I think then wanted their preferred candidate to contest the presidential election to push that aspect of FG which was ignored during the General Election.

I think what they are finding out is that the people that voted for them in the GE did so despite people like GM being in the party and the conservative views.

I've yet to meet one person I know (albeit a biased selection of my mates) that voted for FG in the General Election who will be voting for GM in the Presidential Election.

nesf wrote: »

I don't think they're conceding it but they're definitely being the attack dogs of the coalition partners. Which is a little strange as McG's core vote doesn't really infringe on Mitchell's core vote at all. They target completely different segments of the populace really.

I think the main logic is the polls TBH. At this stage, FG are terrified of losing to MMG (and realistically SF) and so felt the need to attack him knowing they picked a candidate that doesn't look like being a contender in the race and is an also ran. At this early stage it isn't about winning the presidency, it is about saving face.

I don't really think there is any evidence that Higgins would cause Ireland to be hated in America though it is a much more complicated place politically than Ireland IMO. Is there any evidence for that at all? I don't think that blog is really much evidence of anything TBH. I never even heard of it before nor seen it linked here before and I don't see anything in the media stating that Higgins would cause us to be hated in the media. I read some of the stuff on the links but I just gave up as I'm not sure any of that will cause us to be hated in America and it seems that guy is from the opposite side of the political spectrum to Higgins has a bit of an agenda against Higgins and isn't being entirely objective in his analysis TBH. Any other more respected sources saying things like that?

CDfm

nesf wrote: »

I don't think they're conceding it but they're definitely being the attack dogs of the coalition partners. Which is a little strange as McG's core vote doesn't really infringe on Mitchell's core vote at all. They target completely different segments of the populace really.

So how would you handle the current Labour Party's origans.

Michael D's political journey was with Official Sinn Fein , which rebranded itself many times before it staged what some might see as a reverse takeover of the Labour Party.

EDIT I have been corrected Michael Daniel joined the Labour Party

Noel Whelan wrote this piece for the Irish Times almost a year ago.

It is now almost a decade since I was last a member of or active in the party, but I am always happy to talk about those days. That is why it struck me as peculiar that Éamon Gilmore became uncharacteristically tongue-tied when Marian Finucane asked him about his college political activity during her extended interview with him last weekend.....................................................................................................

Gilmore again said he canvassed with Michael D in 1973 and added that he “subsequently joined the Workers’ Party”.
“Was it Sinn Féin the Workers’ Party then or was it Official Sinn Féin then”, Marian queried.
“No, I think it was . . . it was in the process I think of becoming the Workers’ Party at that time. I can’t recall exactly the dates exactly,” Gilmore replied.
“Was it not Official Sinn Féin then?” Marian wondered.
“Not at that, ah, not at that time, I think,” Gilmore added.
She then asked, “Were you a Sticky in your day?” Gilmore ignored the question and instead talked about his opposition to violent IRA activity in Northern Ireland.
It is interesting to compare what Gilmore said with the facts as far as I can find them. The relevant timing for the different names of Official Sinn Féin is as follows. From 1970 until 1977 its title was Sinn Féin; it was generally known as Official Sinn Féin. Gilmore was in University College Galway from 1972 to 1975 and was student union president there in 1974-75. The party changed its name to Sinn Féin the Workers’ Party at the beginning of 1977, by which time Gilmore was president of the Union of Students of Ireland. The party did not drop the words Sinn Féin from its title until April 1982, almost a decade, it seems, after Gilmore joined. The reality is that the first party Eamon Gilmore joined was Official Sinn Féin. This was sometime in 1973 or 1974 and it was not then in the process of “becoming the Workers’ Party”, as he suggests.
It is particularly curious that Gilmore would disclaim knowledge of the party’s name since he was not just an ordinary activist. He was, in fact, among the party leaders on campus.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/1009/1224280698939.html

This metamorphisis is coveniently airbrushed from a lot of the Labour Party's public persona and the politics of its leadership and candidate are being swept to one side and going unchallenged.

Michael D is almost the Official Coallition candidate and ideologically may be much closer to MMG & SF than he is to the Labour Party's Coallition colleagues Fine Gael.

So it would surprise me if Labour and its candidate attacked MMG at all.

Do the rank and file of theFine Gael party support the strategy ?

And , don't forget Michael D's foreign policy is the polar opposite to FG's.

Pride Fighter

Michael D Higgins was never in Official Sinn Fein. I can state that for a fact. He was in Fianna Fail for a brief period, then Labour.

I'd guess that Michael D campaigned on a referendum issue, maybe the entry of Ireland into the EEC in 1972 with various other left wing groups and the journalist Noel Whelan (who has stood for FF in past elections) is taking things out of context due to journalistic bias.

Dont believe everything you read.

murraykil

CDfm wrote: »

Reflecting on Phil Hogan's attack on MMG earlier I mused that the attack on MMG would have been more appropriately levelled against Michael D Higgins.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056408041&page=3

Could it be reminiscent of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, where Brown ended up as Prime Minister because it was "his turn".

The media are alluding to something but not being explicit about it

Check this site on who is anti American



So is Labour being gifted the Presidency and if so should the agreement be disclosed ?

Nice one! Thanks for the info. I think I'll have to consider Michael D. Higgins as more deserving of my vote now.

CDfm

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Michael D Higgins was never in Official Sinn Fein. I can state that for a fact. He was in Fianna Fail for a brief period, then Labour.

I'd guess that Michael D campaigned on a referendum issue, maybe the entry of Ireland into the EEC in 1972 with various other left wing groups

Thanks, I dont recall Higgins political ascent and lived outside Ireland for a time.

The article was more about Gilmore but it did mislead a bit.

Nonetheless, when it comes to foreign policy and America , Michael D is as extreme left as they come.

Pro Castro in Cuba, anti US in Iraq and a host of other affiliations. He seems to have an affection for non democraric extreme regimes.

Almost rabid in his anti-Americanism ,last years furore about calling Michael Graham a wanker was just a very amusing radio event.

Phil Hogan's comments on MMG struck me as being more appropriate to describe Higgins who views on the US are about 180 degrees away from the Fine Gael rank and file on foreign policy.

So for Fine Gael on Foreign Policy - Michael D Higgins is the opposition.

InigoMontoya

nesf wrote: »

I don't think they're conceding it but they're definitely being the attack dogs of the coalition partners. Which is a little strange as McG's core vote doesn't really infringe on Mitchell's core vote at all. They target completely different segments of the populace really.

They do, but I suspect Mitchell and others in FG see opposing McGuinness as a way to raise Mitchell's profile and attract the support of non-FG people who don't want McGuinness as president.

Zubeneschamali

InigoMontoya wrote: »

I suspect Mitchell and others in FG see opposing McGuinness as a way to raise Mitchell's profile and attract the support of non-FG people who don't want McGuinness as president.

I think they see it firstly as a way to get FG people to vote for Mitchell, who is rather unpopular even with the people who voted FG at the last election.

CDfm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think they see it firstly as a way to get FG people to vote for Mitchell, who is rather unpopular even with the people who voted FG at the last election.

The idea of elections is to get the most votes against all your main opponents.

Higgins is the front runner. He ticks some of the boxes in Phil Hogans MMG attack

If they do not take him on they are not at the races.

So is it a pact or a gift ???

Zubeneschamali

CDfm wrote: »

The idea of elections is to get the most votes against all your main opponents.

First, you must get your own Party supporters to vote for you. If Mitchell could do that, he'd be a front runner.

The best way to get FGers to vote for you is to attack the FFer, or if they have collapsed into infighting so bad they can't field anyone, the SFer.

Count Dooku

CDfm wrote: »

The idea of elections is to get the most votes against all your main opponents.

Higgins is the front runner. He ticks some of the boxes in Phil Hogans MMG attack

If they do not take him on they are not at the races.

So is it a pact or a gift ???

or teamwork

Michael D. Higgins is the clear favourite, Fine Gael are the attack dogs. Mitchell’s function is now to take the fight to McGuinness, Norris, Dana, and anyone else that threatens Higgins. Mitchell does not care about transfers. His job is to hoover up enough votes and then when the time comes to convince that vote to transfer to his coalition partner. Job done for team government.

Michael D. Higgins has won the debates so far. It is above the attacks, with Mitchell getting stuck in Michael D. is presented as the calm unifying force that everyone likes. It is essential he remains so. It keeps him transfer friendly and it stops people getting annoyed by anything he says.

Unless other candidates wake up to the strategy, it could already be game over and Michael D. will be booking the removal vans to take him to the Áras. Fine Gael will not attack him, and the others are too busy responding to Fine Gael attacks on them.

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/tv-radio/last-nights-tv-primetime-presential-debate-2891656.html

CDfm

Count Dooku wrote: »

or teamwork


http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/tv-radio/last-nights-tv-primetime-presential-debate-2891656.html

The Fine Gael rank and file must feel like they are being conned.

They should be walking this yet they are being walked over, and their party is being portrayed as fools.

I see tears and electoral casualties in the future.

thebman

CDfm wrote: »

The Fine Gael rank and file must feel like they are being conned.

They should be walking this yet they are being walked over, and their party is being portrayed as fools.

I see tears and electoral casualties in the future.

Well they pushed for him or at least part of the party pushed hard for Mitchell. I don't think anyone spends about 300,000 on an election, hoping to lose TBH.

I hope they are getting compensated by Labour for the expense if it is a conspiracy of the coalition to gift the presidency to Higgins.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

The Fine Gael rank and file must feel like they are being conned.

They should be walking this yet they are being walked over, and their party is being portrayed as fools.

I see tears and electoral casualties in the future.

Michael D was never a sticky - he joined FF while a student at UCG but quickly left to join the Labour Party - first running for them in the 1969 GE. He was always pencilled in as the likely Labour candidate for president this time round way before the last GE.

I cannot fathom what FG are thinking - parachuting in the former PD Pat Cox was never going to go down well with the membership, but their decision to chose Mitchell over McGuinness boggle the mind. It may have been driven by grass routes opposition to what some party members have complained is a quasi-dictatorial style of leadership by Kenny. Another possibility, the one I favour, is that the party has convinced itself that the vote it got in the GE was actually a pro-FG swing rather then the more likely anti-FF protest and therefore a FG presidency was a given.

Perhaps they suspected Martin McGuinness would run and were worried the voter would become confused as to which M McGuinness they were meant to vote for....;).

I do think if there was a back ground deal to 'gift' the position to Labour FG would have preferred a less left of centre candidate - then again...maybe they wanted to shut the lefty up!
It would also have suited the stickies in the Labour Party to have Higgins in the Áras rather then at the cabinet table being 'difficult'.

CDfm

thebman wrote: »

Well they pushed for him or at least part of the party pushed hard for Mitchell. I don't think anyone spends about 300,000 on an election, hoping to lose TBH.

I hope they are getting compensated by Labour for the expense if it is a conspiracy of the coalition to gift the presidency to Higgins.

They are being electorally slaughtered and the 300k is not their own money.

According to the Sunday Independent/Quantum Research opinion poll, 27% of respondents said they would give Higgins their number one vote.

Senator David Norris is in second place on 20%, while Independent Sean Gallagher has moved up to third place on 13%.

Of the 500 people surveyed, 12% said they would vote for Mary Davis, 11% said they would support Sinn Féin's Martin McGuinness, 10% would give Fine Gael's Gay Mitchell their number one, while Independent Dana is trailing on 7%.

For the first time since this election campaign began the poll also offers a clearer picture as to where transfer votes would go - with Michael D Higgins picking up second preference votes from supporters of all of the remaining candidates.

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/higgins-tops-latest-presidential-opinion-poll-522823.html#ixzz1Zq4y9cIM

This is electoral wipeout for them - not only that - but if FG loose Labour support on their coallition.

This is an important power - in 1982 Paddy Hillary did not dissolve the Dail allowing Garret Fitzgeralds government continue.

So, Fine Gael supporters should use that as a measure.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

They are being electorally slaughtered and the 300k is not their own money.

This is electoral wipeout for them - not only that - but if FG loose Labour support on their coallition.

This is an important power - in 1982 Paddy Hillary did not dissolve the Dail allowing Garret Fitzgeralds government continue.

So, Fine Gael supporters should use that as a measure.

Dissolving the Dail is one of the duties of the President that people tend to forget. It's a bloody important one too...

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Dissolving the Dail is one of the duties of the President that people tend to forget. It's a bloody important one too...

The logic of what they are doing just escapes me.

It is just wreckless.

They have had a historic win and should be building on the momentum and are giving away the initiative.

And lets face it, the other candidates are not exactly the pick of the litter.

"We are doing better than Dana" is hardly an achievement.

Who are the decision makers behind this ?

Zubeneschamali

CDfm wrote: »

Who are the decision makers behind this ?

The important point is probably that Enda Kenny didn't want Mitchell, the party picked Gay over Enda's parachute candidate, Pat Cox.

So Enda will be quietly pleased when he gets destroyed.

thebman

CDfm wrote: »

Who are the decision makers behind this ?

Enda was against him preferring Pat Cox.

Gay Mitchell was proposed earlier today by Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald, and seconded by Dan Neville TD while others, including former taoiseach John Bruton had also nominated him for the convention.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0709/breaking24.html

Apparently they have also never won it which is a bit of a surprise to me.
http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/unfancied-mitchell-upsets-odds-to-scoop-fine-gael-nomination-57383.html

Dan Neville - Wiki

He is president of the Irish Association of Suicidology. He was party Deputy spokesperson on Health with special responsibility for Mental Health from 2010–11.

Frances Fitzgerald - Her website

Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Frances Fitzgerald TD, has this week marked Suicide Awareness Week by restating her commitment on leading on youth mental health issues. Minister Fitzgerald made her comments following the successful ‘Working together for Positive Youth Mental Health – Forum’ convened by President McAleese. The report of this forum is expected shortly.

Gay Mitchell's said on the LLS that his presidency would be about increasing awareness of suicide or words to that effect.

Alopex

Agree with you OP. The FG campaign is suspiciously lacklustre given FG have the power to win it.

Perhaps Labour were against the student fee increases or something, and FG gave them this ceremonial position to go along with it.

Other possibility is like Banna said, the president's job is to dissolve the dail, they may think its best to have a coalition president. Looking back I don't think FF would have lasted their last few weeks without a FF president. Annoys me no one remembers that about Saint McAleese

squonk

LOL! His electoral campaign is certainly all about increasing awareness of political suicide! I'm a usual FG supporter who this time won't be giving a 1 to the FG candidate at the election. Frankly, I'm not sure what happened with the selection process. For my money, Mairead McGuinness was head and shoulders above the other two candidates. She has media experience, is a great public speaker and comes across as a 'take me as you find me' type. She doesn't have the depth of political experience sure but if SG & Dana are both going, that hardly matters.

Were Mairead on the ticket I'd be having a much tougher time and my party loyalty would probably come into play, but mainly because I like and support the lady in general. As is, my choice is very clear cut and I'm satisfied with the performance of the candidate who will get my #1 right now. I don't expect that to change dramatically. Mitchell comes across as a nice, knowledgeable guy but shouldn't have gotten past the selection process. I really, really don't know what the idea of bring Pat Cox in was about. I really didn't care for that at all and if he was on the ticket, I'd probably actively campaign against him.

They bungled it. I'm not that impressed but at the end of the day, the party have nobody to blame but themselves if it all goes wrong. As a grass roots member, I had no say in the choice of candidate.

View

CDfm wrote: »

This is an important power - in 1982 Paddy Hillary did not dissolve the Dail allowing Garret Fitzgeralds government continue.

What exactly are you referring to?

In 1982, the first FG and Labour coalition government lost a vote in the Dail on a budgetary measure and a general election was called for February after the dissolution of the Dail on the 27th January.

The second FG and Labour coalition of that year assumed office, after the November '82 election, on 14th December.

Given the length of time the Dail takes on its Christmas breaks, I don't see where the time was there for a vote that could have put President Hillary in a position where he could exercise this power. Could you please clarify your comment?

thebman

Alopex wrote: »

Agree with you OP. The FG campaign is suspiciously lacklustre given FG have the power to win it.

Well looking at their track record of never having won it, the poor candidate selection and election campaign so far seems par for the course if you have a record like that while being the second biggest party in the state.

CDfm

View wrote: »

What exactly are you referring to?

One of the powers of the President is the power not to dissolve the Dail. The situation that Hillery found himself in in 1982.

See below.

independence (of the presidency) was challenged by former Fianna Fáil colleagues in January 1982 when Garret Fitzgerald's first Coalition collapsed on a Budget vote, and Fitzgerald announced his intention of requesting the President to dissolve the Dáil. The President could have refused the request, thereby forcing Fitzgerald's resignation and providing Charles Haughey with the opportunity of forming a minority Fianna Fáil government and going to the country from a position of strength.

Haughey and others, including a future presidential aspirant, Brian Lenihan, telephoned the President's official residence to press their case. Hillery refused to take the calls. It was later alleged in the Dáil that an army officer on duty was threatened, which would have breached the Offences Against the State Act.

In the event, Hillery dissolved the Dáil and Fianna Fáil won the subsequent general election. A second election that year returned the Coalition to office.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1895725/Patrick-Hillery.html

Fine Gael are giving away that power for this for at least the next 7 , if not 14 years.

The dail does not have to be disolved for a new government to come into office.

InigoMontoya

Another factor is that due to FG's success in the general election, pretty much anyone half decent in the party is already a TD, which is in many ways a more attractive position than the Presidency. They were not exactly choosing from the cream of their "talent".

CDfm

InigoMontoya wrote: »

Another factor is that due to FG's success in the general election, pretty much anyone half decent in the party is already a TD, which is in many ways a more attractive position than the Presidency. They were not exactly choosing from the cream of their "talent".

Actually, because they were soo successful in the GE they should be able to roadshow Mitchell around the country and pick up votes.

If they can't translate their electoral dominance into the Presidency they are incompetant or have lost the plot.

If I was a party member or a councillor or a senator or TD I would be seriously asking questions.

They are not acting like Winners .

steelcityblues

Mitchell's lack of grilling of Michael D -compared to McGuinness - and Norris is a bit suspicious, alright.

The tweedle dum and tweedle dee parties, both are.

thebman

steelcityblues wrote: »

Mitchell's lack of grilling of Michael D -compared to McGuinness - and Norris is a bit suspicious, alright.

The tweedle dum and tweedle dee parties, both are.

Mitchell made MMG look good on the TV3 debate. I watched it this morning on the website. Mitchell attacked MMG over his past etc... then brought up the point that if elected he would be trying to increase awareness of the problem of suicide in our society.

MMG managed to hi-jack this to say that he too would be doing those things but because he has been in power in the North and will have won this election if he is president, he will be able to do so on an all Ireland basis and that this is why he spoke of being a 32 county president.

I don't want to vote MMG due to his past but even I was half convinced he'd be a good president after that. I don't know why FG are pursuing this crazy campaign strategy though I'm glad because I disagree entirely with GM conservative Christian agenda which he isn't honest with the electorate about while calling for honesty in this election.

View

CDfm wrote: »

One of the powers of the President is the power not to dissolve the Dail. The situation that Hillery found himself in in 1982.

See below.

President Hillary did dissolve in January 82 at the request of the then Taoiseach Garret Fitzgerald.

There was no case of:

in 1982 Paddy Hillary did not dissolve the Dail allowing Garret Fitzgeralds government continue.

to the best of my knowledge.

Maybe you just phrased the previous post badly?

View

steelcityblues wrote: »

Mitchell's lack of grilling of Michael D -compared to McGuinness - and Norris is a bit suspicious, alright.

The tweedle dum and tweedle dee parties, both are.

One commentator speculated that both FG & SF see the former FF vote up for grabs and each want to hover it up. Hence the FG V's SF clashes.

In many rural areas that might well be the case.

steelcityblues

View wrote: »

One commentator speculated that both FG & SF see the former FF vote up for grabs and each want to hover it up. Hence the FG V's SF clashes.

In many rural areas that might well be the case.

Mitchell is a pro-EU, anti-nationalist, social conservative

McGuinness is a anti-EU, pro-nationalist, economic centrist.

They don't have a lot in common, and neither do their core supporters.

CDfm

View wrote: »

President Hillary did dissolve in January 82 at the request of the then Taoiseach Garret Fitzgerald.

There was no case of:



to the best of my knowledge.

Maybe you just phrased the previous post badly?

As I understand it ,the constitutional position is very wooly and as we saw in the last UK election when Labour ,the largest party, was unable to form a government.

I phrased it badly and there was a delay and tbh I dont recall the precise timing- but the point is that it is an important power if you have coalition governments.

If the Taoiseach has a majority the President must disolve but a minority Taoiseach may be asked to try again before the opposition leader is sent for. The Pres may then send for the leader of the opposition or act on the request and dissolve the dail.

So why give away the "get out of jail card".

View

steelcityblues wrote: »

Mitchell is a pro-EU, anti-nationalist, social conservative

McGuinness is a anti-EU, pro-nationalist, economic centrist.

They don't have a lot in common, and neither do their core supporters.

The commentator's point wasn't about the make-up of the core supporters of either FG or SF.

Rather it was about the votes of FF supporters being the target - the commentator's opinion was (I'd presume) that in large parts of rural Ireland their votes are most likely to end up in the tally piles of either Mitchell or McGuinness. Hence, the clashes.

steelcityblues

View wrote: »

The commentator's point wasn't about the make-up of the core supporters of either FG or SF.

Rather it was about the votes of FF supporters being the target - the commentator's opinion was (I'd presume) that in large parts of rural Ireland their votes are most likely to end up in the tally piles of either Mitchell or McGuinness. Hence, the clashes.

Don't underestimate Dana getting a good chunk of the rural vote. She won't win - because she is not appealing to urban Ireland on a serious level - but she will do well in the rural areas.

FF people in rural areas are certainly a tribal lot, so most will go for McGuinness ahead of Mitchell. No way a 'Blueshirt' gets a #1 from them.