The Pat Kenny Show

meeeeh

Referendum is great as idea but in practice it means people who haven't got a clue are voting on fundamental issues. The best you can do is present both sides of argument as honestly as possible. I think the requirement for 50/50 is a bit redundant but there should be space for both sides to air their views.

I think complaining about David Quinn is a bit like explaining to the waiter that you are vegan loudly enough so the whole restaurant hears you. At this stage it's more of an ego thing than anything else.

Tell me how

meeeeh wrote: »

Referendum is great as idea but in practice it means people who haven't got a clue are voting on fundamental issues. The best you can do is present both sides of argument as honestly as possible. I think the requirement for 50/50 is a bit redundant but there should be space for both sides to air their views.

I think we do quite well in Ireland in terms of becoming informed ahead of referendums.

The referendum commission publication of the question and impact is a very good system and we do have a widely engaged electorate and several platforms on which discussions are held.

It wasnt me123

meeeeh wrote: »

......

I think complaining about David Quinn is a bit like explaining to the waiter that you are vegan loudly enough so the whole restaurant hears you. At this stage it's more of an ego thing than anything else.

I think the same about keyboard warriors having a go at people offering an opinion on a forum!

I can't stand David Quinn, Mullen or any of their ilk and I'm happy to say it very loudly.

meeeeh

Tell me how wrote: »

I think we do quite well in Ireland in terms of becoming informed ahead of referendums.

The referendum commission publication of the question and impact is a very good system and we do have a widely engaged electorate and several platforms on which discussions are held.

Do you know what were you voting on in Houses of the Oireachtas inquiries referendum? Lisbon? Children's rights?

meeeeh

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

I think the same about keyboard warriors having a go at people offering an opinion on a forum!

I can't stand David Quinn, Mullen or any of their ilk and I'm happy to say it very loudly.

So what is more important, the fact that you can't stand them or that everyone knows that you can't stand them?

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

Do you know what were you voting on in Houses of the Oireachtas inquiries referendum? Lisbon? Children's rights?

I think most people could describe the kernel of those issues with an acceptable level of accuracy.

I wouldn't have been able to cite legal cases that made such referenda necessary, but could explain the basics, I think. We're far more aware of the repercussions of our constitutional changes than the UK, for example. And the media deserves a great deal of credit for that.

Tell me how

meeeeh wrote: »

Do you know what were you voting on in Houses of the Oireachtas inquiries referendum? Lisbon? Children's rights?

Yes. That's the point, it isn't that hard to become informed, if you are of a mind to.
I mean, there is still subjectivity but it is a long way from the sort of fiasco we observed in the UK with Brexit.

It wasnt me123

meeeeh wrote: »

So what is more important, the fact that you can't stand them or that everyone knows that you can't stand them?

I'm offering an opinion on the radio programme - David Quinn was on Pat Kennys programme.

What is your problem? I thought this thread was about the radio programme and the content.

I was offering an opinion that I thought iONA received way too much airtime in relation to the volume of people their ideas represent. My opinion, its a forum, you are supposed to discuss your opinions. You don't agree with my opinion, grand, build a river and get over yourself.

meeeeh

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think most people could describe the kernel of those issues with an acceptable level of accuracy.

I wouldn't have been able to cite legal cases that made such referenda necessary, but could explain them. We're far more aware of the repercussions of our constitutional changes than the UK, for example. And the media deserves a great deal of credit for that.

I'm a political anorak and I couldn't tell you what the vote on the inquiries was about. What was the difference between Lisbon 1 and Lisbon 2 that people changed their mind? Or was it that majority of the people didn't bother the first time and had to be prodded a bit to vote the second time. Uk isn't comparable because their referendums aren't binding.

Btw I'm not saying it's media fault, I'm saying that people can't be trusted half of the time. I'm not a believer in referendums.

Tell me how

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm a political anorak and I couldn't tell you what the vote on the inquiries was about. What was the difference between Lisbon 1 and Lisbon 2 that people changed their mind? Or was it that majority of the people didn't bother the first time and had to be prodded a bit to vote the second time. Uk isn't comparable because their referendums aren't binding.

Btw I'm not saying it's media fault, I'm saying that people can't be trusted half of the time. I'm not a believer in referendums.

Whether it is referendum or governance, everything comes back to the people.

The UK is comparable because their most recent one showed how poorly they were set up to understand the specifics and how the government was asleep at the wheel through out the campaign.

Manipulative forces will be at play no matter the system, and if an entire electorate cannot be trusted, it is not necessarily the case that a government or parliament would be any more honourable. (In theory they should be more informed but we have seen that that is not always the case either).

I would rather the referendum system rather than, for example, it being supplanted by something such as the Citizen's assembly.

I think referendums still have a place if nothing else but to respect the constitution in saying only the people can change it.

meeeeh

Tell me how wrote: »

Whether it is referendum or governance, everything comes back to the people.

The UK is comparable because their most recent one showed how poorly they were set up to understand the specifics and how the government was asleep at the wheel through out the campaign.

Manipulative forces will be at play no matter the system, and if an entire electorate cannot be trusted, it is not necessarily the case that a government or parliament would be any more honourable. (In theory they should be more informed but we have seen that that is not always the case either).

I would rather the referendum system rather than, for example, it being supplanted by something such as the Citizen's assembly.

I think referendums still have a place if nothing else but to respect the constitution in saying only the people can change it.

I understand what you are saying but this referendum is good example that some things shouldn't be voted on. As far as I know more or less legal experts state that 4 years separation doesn't work and it just makes it more expensive and more painful for the couple. Yet there will be people who will listen to David Quinns for ideological reasons without actually knowing much about how dovorce is processed and how expensive and taxing it is for people. This referendum will be probably passed but in the past legal experts advised against the right to life of unborn to be put in constitution. They were ignored and the result was 30 years of misery and confusion.

I believe proper debate should be conducted with all sides represented but lets not pretend all decisions are always rational or truly representative of what electorate wants. And even if they roughly reflect the electorate Brexit is also great example how can tight result can tear country apart.

Anyway this is a bit off topic.

plodder

meeeeh wrote: »

I understand what you are saying but this referendum is good example that some things shouldn't be voted on. As far as I know more or less legal experts state that 4 years separation doesn't work and it just makes it more expensive and more painful for the couple. Yet there will be people who will listen to David Quinns for ideological reasons without actually knowing much about how dovorce is processed and how expensive and taxing it is for people. This referendum will be probably passed but in the past legal experts advised against the right to life of unborn to be put in constitution. They were ignored and the result was 30 years of misery and confusion.

I believe proper debate should be conducted with all sides represented but lets not pretend all decisions are always rational or truly representative of what electorate wants. And even if they roughly reflect the electorate Brexit is also great example how can tight result can tear country apart.

Anyway this is a bit off topic.

Don't forget the history - the first divorce referendum was rejected by a near two to one ratio. The second one passed by a tiny majority in 1995 and without the four year waiting period it probably would have failed too. That's politics and democracy for you. The right to divorce with even an interminable four year delay was better than nothing at all. So, here we are 25 years on finally putting it right.

It probably could have been fixed long before now, but at least at this stage it has a snow balls chance in hell of not being passed. What Quinn and others are saying is a complete irrelevance, and will hardly influence anyone, which is why it's so odd for people to be upset by what he is saying.

Mad_maxx

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

I'm offering an opinion on the radio programme - David Quinn was on Pat Kennys programme.

What is your problem? I thought this thread was about the radio programme and the content.

I was offering an opinion that I thought iONA received way too much airtime in relation to the volume of people their ideas represent. My opinion, its a forum, you are supposed to discuss your opinions. You don't agree with my opinion, grand, build a river and get over yourself.

They represent far more people than Richard boyd Barrett or the other communists in the Dail, the far left receive a grossly disproportionate level of media airtime, boyd barret was a household name years before getting elected to the Dail

i71jskz5xu42pb

Mad_maxx wrote: »

They represent far more people than Richard boyd Barrett or the other communists in the Dail, the far left receive a grossly disproportionate level of media airtime, boyd barret was a household name years before getting elected to the Dail

You're kind of contradicting yourself here, no?
Boyd Barret obviously represents people given that he's been an *elected* TD since 2011. And it's not like he's a lone voice there are a few elected TDs on that end of the spectrum, always have been. You can talk all you want about conservative Catholics representing more people but it's not borne out by what people actually vote for. People had that choice with Renua and it was pretty soundly rejected.

All that said I've little issue with David Quinn getting airtime. He's a bit of a bore but that's the worst of it. Based on the last two referendums it doesn't seem to make a difference what he says, people have moved on.

meeeeh

Renua and People Before Profit - Solidarity got 2.2% each of first preference votes in 2016 election. I don't mind Richard Boyd Barrett, there are a lot worse tds around but the loony left has similarly abysmal support as Renua. From memory I would think Renua had more candidates though.

Tell me how

If anyone from the Pat Kenny show is reading this, please bin the sound effect of a can kicked down the road!!
It sounded cringing and detracted from what was being discussed.

Roger_007

Tell me how wrote: »

If anyone from the Pat Kenny show is reading this, please bin the sound effect of a can kicked down the road!!
It sounded cringing and detracted from what was being discussed.

I agree. It's tiresome and juvenile. The can should be recycled and put to some beneficial use.

serfboard

Tell me how wrote: »

If anyone from the Pat Kenny show is reading this, please bin the sound effect of a can kicked down the road!!
It sounded cringing and detracted from what was being discussed.

I only heard it this morning and thought it was appalling.

What moron came up with that idea, and how did Pat let himself be persuaded to use it?

Tell me how

serfboard wrote: »

I only heard it this morning and thought it was appalling.

What moron came up with that idea, and how did Pat let himself be persuaded to use it?

Pat seemed to enjoy it. I think he is so frustrated of consistently feeling that problems are being kicked down the road, the idea of this appealed to him.

Didn't work for me, sounded like something Derek and Dave on KBWLCFM's Morning Glory show would use to initiate a snorting laugh for 30 seconds, while their listeners are stuck in a traffic jam, in the rain, thinking if they got a hold of Derek or Dave they wouldn't be able to laugh for 6 months.

plodder

Tell me how wrote: »

Pat seemed to enjoy it. I think he is so frustrated of consistently feeling that problems are being kicked down the road, the idea of this appealed to him.

It doesn't surprise me. There is an insufferable air off him that he knows best and there are simple solutions to everything, if only people would listen to him.

Tell me how

plodder wrote: »

It doesn't surprise me. There is an insufferable air off him that he knows best and there are simple solutions to everything, if only people would listen to him.

Can't agree with that. Personally find him the most capable current affairs presenter on Irish radio. That's not to say everyone else is crap, but he is at the top of the tree in my view.

plodder

Tell me how wrote: »

Can't agree with that. Personally find him the most capable current affairs presenter on Irish radio. That's not to say everyone else is crap, but he is at the top of the tree in my view.

I'll admit I don't listen to him very often, and it just happened he was being insufferable the last few times I did.

griffin100

Tell me how wrote: »

Can't agree with that. Personally find him the most capable current affairs presenter on Irish radio. That's not to say everyone else is crap, but he is at the top of the tree in my view.

Being the most capable current affairs presenter on Irish Radio (which I agree he is most of the time) does not make him right on every issue or bestow him with unquestionable and complete knowledge of all subjects. He can be very obnoxious on stuff like Trump, the Children Hospital, Brexit, etc. He doesn't like to be questioned or challenged.

Tell me how

griffin100 wrote: »

Being the most capable current affairs presenter on Irish Radio (which I agree he is most of the time) does not make him right on every issue or bestow him with unquestionable and complete knowledge of all subjects. He can be very obnoxious on stuff like Trump, the Children Hospital, Brexit, etc. He doesn't like to be questioned or challenged.

Black Bold - Never said it did.
Blue Bold - I disagree, those are massive current affairs topics, they need someone to push for complete teuthful disclosure, not to buy the , 'Move along, nothing to see here' narrative.
Red Bold - I see it as he doesn't like someone trying to BS him. Who does?

mattser

griffin100 wrote: »

Being the most capable current affairs presenter on Irish Radio (which I agree he is most of the time) does not make him right on every issue or bestow him with unquestionable and complete knowledge of all subjects. He can be very obnoxious on stuff like Trump, the Children Hospital, Brexit, etc. He doesn't like to be questioned or challenged.

Nail on head there Griffin.

plodder

The children's hospital was one I tuned in to and again a second time when he berated a listener for disagreeing with him on the same topic. I wouldn't say he didn't like to be questioned, but he had complete confidence that he was right, and he just said something like the above "it's my job to call out the 'move along ..' narrative". In reality he is just overly invested in it and not dispassionate in the way I know he can be on other topics. There isn't a simple answer to where the children's hospital should have been built. Each location had different pros/cons and wherever was chosen would have resulted in objections from different groups of people. By the way, I probably would listen to him a bit more if I was out and about at that time.

hotmail.com

plodder wrote:

It doesn't surprise me. There is an insufferable air off him that he knows best and there are simple solutions to everything, if only people would listen to him.

He seems to be getting worse as the years go on.

hotmail.com

griffin100 wrote:

Being the most capable current affairs presenter on Irish Radio (which I agree he is most of the time) does not make him right on every issue or bestow him with unquestionable and complete knowledge of all subjects. He can be very obnoxious on stuff like Trump, the Children Hospital, Brexit, etc. He doesn't like to be questioned or challenged.

And he just makes the exact same points about these topics in every discussion. He's unable to expand or diversify his line of questioning.

Tell me how

hotmail.com wrote: »

And he just makes the exact same points about these topics in every discussion. He's unable to expand or diversify his line of questioning.

Brilliant. :D:D

mzungu

Pat Kenny keeps getting better. The move to Newstalk has been great for him.