Kenny will not debate with Adams on the Vincent Browne Show.

Wider Road

Good loser wrote: »

Perfectly right of Kenny not to do the VB show.

Why subject himself to questioning by a biased, cantankerous, bullying crank with a left wing agenda who has already made clear that he considers the Treaty should be rejected to send a 'message' to the Govt that we have had too much 'austerity'. Let TV 3 suck.

Enda said he would do everything to get this referendum passed & then he goes off & refuses to debate.
What's his delay now that Ursula Halligan is now offered to replace Vincent? It's over 24 hours now, what's his problem?

thecommietommy

johngalway wrote: »

He said he doesn't do the VB programme. The VB programme with Halligan is still the VB programme. Enda was honest about VB, I don't blame him for that one bit. VB's comment about Enda was shameless. Yes, he apologised, but so what? He'd do it again in the morning if it gave him better ratings. Someone on radio described him (VB) today as a "cranky pensioner". You reap what you sow with people, even politicians. Personal remarks are beyond the pale.

Good loser wrote: »

Perfectly right of Kenny not to do the VB show.

Why subject himself to questioning by a biased, cantankerous, bullying crank with a left wing agenda who has already made clear that he considers the Treaty should be rejected to send a 'message' to the Govt that we have had too much 'austerity'. Let TV 3 suck.

First we have had Taoiseach Cowen refusing to go on the VB show and now we have Taoiseach Kenny refusing. Who says FG/Labour and FF aren't just two cheeks of the same ar$e ?

The Waltzing Consumer

thecommietommy wrote: »

First we have had Taoiseach Cowen refusing to go on the VB show and now we have Taoiseach Kenny refusing. Who says FG/Labour and FF aren't just two cheeks of the same ar$e ?

Do you think politicians should be forced to appear on private broadcasters?

I tend not to agree and after watching all the Presidential debates, I think they actually do more damage to all sides then benefit anyone. Debating is essential but I think certain platforms, such as RTE presidential debates, make a complete mockery of the importance of these issues and it has more in common with the Rose of Tralee then politics.

280special

BOHtox wrote: »

Actually Browne insinuated that Kenny should kill himself.


I'm sure he'd do it if Ursula Halligan was doing it

Good grief....now that would be fascinating to watch...NOT !

Kenny would in the blink of an eye, it would be akin to fighting his way out of a wet paper bag compared to dealing with VB !

280special

Wider Road wrote: »

Enda said he would do everything to get this referendum passed & then he goes off & refuses to debate.
What's his delay now that Ursula Halligan is now offered to replace Vincent? It's over 24 hours now, what's his problem?

Cant be seen to be too keen , cant be seen to be a scared of answering REAL questions from a REAL interviewer who might know what they are talking about !

and then he is probably scared witless that VB will come charging out of the shadows in the middle of it and ask him something complicated....

smithcity

Howjoe1 wrote: »

i'm pretty sure matt cooper stated kenny has refused to come on his show also? i stand to be corrected.

But imho, if the leader of the country refuses to engage with media shows that many voters watch & listen to, can he really expect me to vote YES without these debates?

As much as I enjoy watching Vincent Browne, I think he is more of an entertainer than an interviewer. Browne is fearless, goes for the jugular, puts words in the mouths of his interviewees, routinely shouts them down when they try to clarify their positions, dismisses them and insinuates that they are disingenuous at every turn. He doesn't allow politicians to talk around an issue or give vague answers, he's a wrecking ball.
Some interviewees are very good at handling him, other's fall apart, get flustered and come away looking very bad.

I think that Kenny knows well that if he is put face to face with Browne, he's not going to come away from it without bruises. From his point of view, it's probably more acceptable to take the flak for refusing to appear with Browne, than for him to risk going on the show and providing soundbites and footage of himself being taken apart by Browne, to be shown endlessly on TV3 news.

As for refusing to be interviewed by Matt Cooper, I think that's ridiculous. Cooper is a brilliant and professional interviewer who will ask the tough questions without being aggressive or biased.

280special

By the way anyone hear Brendan Howlin doing a radio interview on RTE yesterday with Pearse Doherty ? Kept being asked why Kenny wouldnt do the leaders debate? Couldnt answer , stuttered and stumbled and just kept asking why Adams hadnt accepted the Michael Martin invite....Same old arrogance, same old denials....Boy I cant wait for the first of these hypocrites to come knocking at the door !

Now to me, if SF wanted to put someone up to devate the rights and wrongs of the treaty Doherty would be the best of their front bench..

The Waltzing Consumer

280special wrote: »

Cant be seen to be too keen , cant be seen to be a scared of answering REAL questions from a REAL interviewer who might know what they are talking about !

and then he is probably scared witless that VB will come charging out of the shadows in the middle of it and ask him something complicated....

No offense lads, but no politician has an obligation to appear on a private broadcaster. Everything VB asked in the last debate has been asked countless times now by politicians and other media to the yes and no side.

Tell me the real questions that you want asked that have not been asked by the media or the opposing side, for either side. What exactly are they?

the purple tin

Enda Kenny is simply not a good debater. Even FG'ers have said it.
Take away his script and he'll end up making a fool of himself.

thecommietommy

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Do you think politicians should be forced to appear on private broadcasters?

I tend not to agree and after watching all the Presidential debates, I think they actually do more damage to all sides then benefit anyone. Debating is essential but I think certain platforms, such as RTE presidential debates, make a complete mockery of the importance of these issues and it has more in common with the Rose of Tralee then politics.

Cann't agree with you at all, public debating is essential. As for the Pres. election, well Gallagher was caught out, Mitchell made a total fool of himself ( FG win their biggest Dail vote but he couldn't even win his deposit back !!!! ), Norris was shown up with his pensions and his gay lovers liking for young boys, Mary the Quango Queen Davis etc.

Thank God for TV debates, never miss the VB show.

thecommietommy

the purple tin wrote: »

Enda Kenny is simply not a good debater. Even FG'ers have said it.
Take away his script and he'll end up making a fool of himself.

In fairness he seems to handle himself ok in the Dail. Has he/FG something they are trying to hide and don't want to give VB the chance to expose it I wonder ?

smithcity

the purple tin wrote: »

Enda Kenny is simply not a good debater. Even FG'ers have said it.
Take away his script and he'll end up making a fool of himself.

He's no demagogue, I'll give you that, but I think he can hold his own in a debate. I just don't think he has the demeanour to go through the full Vincent Browne treatment.

The Waltzing Consumer

thecommietommy wrote: »

Cann't agree with you at all, public debating is essential. As for the Pres. election, well Gallagher was caught out, Mitchell made a total fool of himself ( FG win their biggest Dail vote but he couldn't even win his deposit back !!!! ), Norris was shown up with his pensions and his gay lovers liking for young boys, Mary the Quango Queen Davis etc.

Thank God for TV debates, never miss the VB show.

Fair enough, you will notice that I did say debating is essential too by the way

I am talking about certain debates though, they turn into cringe worthy debates that lessen the debate.

If I am going to judge on these TV debates so far, what I have seen is Mary Lou McDonald's fake tan seems to get darker each time she appears on tv and that Joe Higgins performance on VB was a disaster and his biggest contribution was having his mouth wide open with a befuddled look for the whole show. Now I know Joe is an excellent debater, but if we take your attitude, he is an absolute moron and dodged the question put to him on VB and spent the rest of the time as efficient as a sack of potatoes.

The Waltzing Consumer

thecommietommy wrote: »

In fairness he seems to handle himself ok in the Dail. Has he/FG something they are trying to hide and don't want to give VB the chance to expose it I wonder ?

Well, don't wonder, tell us what it is?

If VB has this info, why did he not ask the FG TD who appeared on the debate or the many other FG/LAB tds who regularly appear on his show? Why does he not share it with other media to ask when they talk to TDs on a daily basis?

Are you stretching this conspiracy a bit far now?

the purple tin

thecommietommy wrote: »

In fairness he seems to handle himself ok in the Dail. Has he/FG something they are trying to hide and don't want to give VB the chance to expose it I wonder ?

The difference in the Dail and a tough interview is you don't actually have to answer a question in the Dail, you can just give a general/non commital type statement in reply and then move on.
The interviewer however can keep at them until he gets a straight answer out of them. It's probably why hard interviewers like Browne and Paxman are unpopular with politicians.

smithcity

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

If VB has this info, why did he not ask the FG TD who appeared on the debate or the many other FG/LAB tds who regularly appear on his show? Why does he not share it with other media to ask when they talk to TDs on a daily basis?

All he has to do is ask any question he may have asked a thousand other politicians, then give one of his famous "incredulous looks" when Kenny answers.

Like you said, some of these debates are more like Rose of Tralee competitions than serious discussions. Appearances count for everything.

thecommietommy

the purple tin wrote: »

The difference in the Dail and a tough interview is you don't actually have to answer a question in the Dail, you can just give a general/non commital type statement in reply and then move on.
The interviewer however can keep at them until he gets a straight answer out of them. It's probably why hard interviewers like Browne and Paxman are unpopular with politicians.

True regarding the Dail, but give me Browne any day over Paxman.

gerryo777

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

No offense lads, but no politician has an obligation to appear on a private broadcaster. Everything VB asked in the last debate has been asked countless times now by politicians and other media to the yes and no side.

Tell me the real questions that you want asked that have not been asked by the media or the opposing side, for either side. What exactly are they?

I'd like to know why, when the rest of europe is now balking at continuing austerity, that enda & co are so keen to tie us to a series of budgets that will do nothing to help our domestic economy?

I would also like to know why enda & co refuse to stand up for the people that elected them?

I would also like to let enda know that if he continues with his current policies, he like fianna FAIL before him will feel the full force of the Irish electorate and he and his party will be consigned to history.

The times, they are a changing! as a famous singer once said.....

Give it 20 years and Sinn Fein will be running Ireland, mark my words.

thecommietommy

smithcity wrote: »

All he has to do is ask any question he may have asked a thousand other politicians, then give one of his famous "incredulous looks" when Kenny answers.

Like you said, some of these debates are more like Rose of Tralee competitions than serious discussions. Appearances count for everything.

Well VB gives "incredulous looks" at every politican regardless. But if a politican is afraid to go on a discussion because of "incredulous looks", then he certainly should not be Taoiseach.

smithcity

thecommietommy wrote: »

Well VB gives "incredulous looks" at every politican regardless. But if a politican is afraid to go on a discussion because of "incredulous looks", then he certainly should not be Taoiseach.

The point I've been making all along is that nobody comes away from a Vincent Browne show smelling of roses, and from that standpoint it makes sense to opt out.
When Browne decides to have a go at someone, he can steamroll them, whereas a broadcaster like Matt Cooper allows the facts to speak for themselves.

The Waltzing Consumer

gerryo777 wrote: »

I'd like to know why, when the rest of europe is now balking at continuing austerity, that enda & co are so keen to tie us to a series of budgets that will do nothing to help our domestic economy?

I would also like to know why enda & co refuse to stand up for the people that elected them?

I would also like to let enda know that if he continues with his current policies, he like fianna FAIL before him will feel the full force of the Irish electorate and he and his party will be consigned to history.

The times, they are a changing! as a famous singer once said.....

Give it 20 years and Sinn Fein will be running Ireland, mark my words.

These are not questions that have not been asked. These are quite common questions Personally, I think these questions are absolute rubbish but we are not here to debate the actual questions. These "questions" have been put forward by SF quite a lot and they get replies.

I am asking about the questions that are not being asked or answered. These clearly have been asked and answered.

leonidas83

I had to laugh with E.Kenny firstly saying he doesnt do the VB show & then coming up with another pathetic excuse when U.Hannigan was offered as an alternative.

I get the feeling Fine Geal are just as desperate to keep him out of these debates as he is himself. Lets not forget when Michael Noonan was the leader of FG, he didnt even give E.Kenny (30 years in the dail) a shadow portfolio, also his own party attempted a heave against him months before the general election, not to mention before the GE he was very rarely interviewed or seen for that matter.

It just shows you what his own party think of him, the only thing he ever seems to be doing is photocalls & heading off to Europe where he is a non entity. Sarkozy's patronizing slap a few weeks ago indicated what they think of him also.

We have a Taoiseach that is more interested in doing the glamorous aspects of the job but doesnt have a clue when it comes down to the real issues & is petrified of being shown up for what he is which is completely clueless

The Waltzing Consumer

thecommietommy wrote: »

Well VB gives "incredulous looks" at every politican regardless. But if a politican is afraid to go on a discussion because of "incredulous looks", then he certainly should not be Taoiseach.

Again, you are drawing a conclusion without any evidence which is wrong. Plus you also did not answer my replies to your faith in these debates when it comes to the judgement of SF/ULA members as if we are basing our opinions on the VB show debate, Joe Higgins is a buffoon and Mary-Lou is slowly physically changing race.

It is extremely important that we not take the attitude that a VB debate should decide our views on this treaty because it is simply wrong and we can point to examples for both yes and no sides to this.

Enda won't do it, therefore, he is weak, he is hiding something, don't vote yes

Joe Higgins does it, does not answer question, spends most of the time with his mouth hanging open looking like a buffoon, don't vote no

This is stupid stupid stuff and so superficial and commietommy, you are just lowering the tone and intelligence of the debate for continuing this soap opera discussion away from the actual treaty.

gerryo777

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

These are not questions that have not been asked. These are quite common questions Personally, I think these questions are absolute rubbish but we are not here to debate the actual questions. These "questions" have been put forward by SF quite a lot and they get replies.

I am asking about the questions that are not being asked or answered. These clearly have been asked and answered.

Ok then, instead of telling us about some kind of armageddon if we say no, I would like to know the implications of saying yes.
Not just about access to funds, I would like it explained to us exactly what will happen if we vote yes.

Are FG/Labour now telling us that we need a second 'bailout' or not?
Why do we need a second 'bailout'?
Why wont FG/Labour tackle the CPA which is costing an absolute fortune to keep?
Is this why we need a second 'bailout'?
Will labour walk if the terms to the CPA are changed?

When will FG/Labour stop creating quango's and start getting rid of a few like they promised?
Is this why we will need access to a second 'bailout'?

Why do they keep insisting on giving their 'advisors' pay rises way above what was agreed?
Is this why we will need a second 'bailout'?

These are the questions I want answered before I decide which way to vote.


But back to the original question, why won't enda debate on a national forum his reasons for and the implications of voting yes?

Are these 'rubbish' questions too?

Fenian Army

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Again, you are drawing a conclusion without any evidence which is wrong. Plus you also did not answer my replies to your faith in these debates when it comes to the judgement of SF/ULA members as if we are basing our opinions on the VB show debate, Joe Higgins is a buffoon and Mary-Lou is slowly physically changing race.

It is extremely important that we not take the attitude that a VB debate should decide our views on this treaty because it is simply wrong and we can point to examples for both yes and no sides to this.

Enda won't do it, therefore, he is weak, he is hiding something, don't vote yes

Joe Higgins does it, does not answer question, spends most of the time with his mouth hanging open looking like a buffoon, don't vote no

This is stupid stupid stuff and so superficial and commietommy, you are just lowering the tone and intelligence of the debate for continuing this soap opera discussion away from the actual treaty.

Pot, meet kettle.

Shows the inherent sexist nature of many people that hey mock or berate womens arguments because of their appearance. I think Mary Lou looks very well, not that it matters one jot with regards to her arguments about the austerity treaty.

The Waltzing Consumer

Fenian Army wrote: »

Pot, meet kettle.

Shows the inherent sexist nature of many people that hey mock or berate womens arguments because of their appearance. I think Mary Lou looks very well, not that it matters one jot with regards to her arguments about the austerity treaty.

Please read the full thread and discussion between myself and that poster which will clearly show I was arguing against the cosmetic surface of the TV debates as the opposing poster was doing this for only one side, and I was showing examples of what is would be if the other side were doing the same.

Selective quoting, where have I seen that in that in this campaign before?:rolleyes:

Drumpot

Is kenny not going on the vb show because he feels it's not in the people's interest or that its not in his interest?

He's no differant to our previous leaders who feel that the position of an Taoiseach is to use it in the best way possible to manipulate your popularity even at the expense of the people you pretend to serve.

I don't care if kenny goes on the show, but many people do.

The Waltzing Consumer

gerryo777 wrote: »

Ok then, instead of telling us about some kind of armageddon if we say no, I would like to know the implications of saying yes.
Not just about access to funds, I would like it explained to us exactly what will happen if we vote yes.

Are FG/Labour now telling us that we need a second 'bailout' or not?
Why do we need a second 'bailout'?
Why wont FG/Labour tackle the CPA which is costing an absolute fortune to keep?
Is this why we need a second 'bailout'?
Will labour walk if the terms to the CPA are changed?

When will FG/Labour stop creating quango's and start getting rid of a few like they promised?
Is this why we will need access to a second 'bailout'?

Why do they keep insisting on giving their 'advisors' pay rises way above what was agreed?
Is this why we will need a second 'bailout'?

These are the questions I want answered before I decide which way to vote.


But back to the original question, why won't enda debate on a national forum his reasons for and the implications of voting yes?

Are these 'rubbish' questions too?

Enda debates on a national forum pretty much every day, and I will say that about all TDs, yes and no. The one thing these guys are not, is silent. I will hear Mary Lou, I will hear Enda, I will hear Joe Higgins, I will hear them all.

After that, your questions are very good, I like them, I think they should be answered, I believe a lot of them have been asked and I insist they should be and should be answered.

But in regards to the these questions linking to the Treaty, these questions are somewhat vague. The future cannot be foreseen, so each side is looking at possible outcomes and trying to envisage likely scenarios, can they say something is 100%? No, and I won't vote for someone who does.

The bailout questions are important, the CPA has zero to do with this treaty but I agree with your sentiment about it. Same with the Quangos, but then again, the No side have parties such as ULA who want to create thousands of state jobs, so this would far more likely create more quangos so that question would be more for the No side then yes.

The possible second bailout. We spend more then we take in. If we cannot raise enough money or lower costs enough to meet this, we might have to look for money. That is a reality.

All your questions should be put to all parties.

blowtorch

thecommietommy wrote: »

In fairness he seems to handle himself ok in the Dail. Has he/FG something they are trying to hide and don't want to give VB the chance to expose it I wonder ?

Because he already knows the questions, and can have someone write the answers;)

blowtorch

Drumpot wrote: »

Is kenny not going on the vb show because he feels it's not in the people's interest or that its not in his interest?

He's no differant to our previous leaders who feel that the position of an Taoiseach is to use it in the best way possible to manipulate your popularity even at the expense of the people you pretend to serve.

I don't care if kenny goes on the show, but many people do.

Sure, if Kenny doesn't want to go onto VB, he can send in two of his colleagues - Michael Martin and Simon Coveney.