Christmas messages from politicians

SpaceTime

Even weirder: someone from FF sent me a card thanking me for my support over the years!?!

I've never ever voted for them.

Harry Angstrom

swampgas wrote: »

Indeed.

Suppose the card was a mass card, and referred to a specific Catholic service - would that be okay? I don't think Protestants or Jews or Muslims or atheists would be all that impressed.

Suppose the card was addressed to "the man of the house" and wished a Happy Christmas to him, his wife and children? I don't think that would go down so well either, it's horribly old fashioned and sexist.

As society changes, the sensitivities that politicians need to be aware of change also. Today, if a politician (or aspiring politician) doesn't want to come across like The Bull Mick from The Savage Eye to some of his or her prospective supporters, they might want to stop making assumptions about everyone in Ireland being a Christian.

It's a Christmas card with a picture of the nativity on the front :rolleyes: Some people really do seem to want to go out of their way to be offended. If that's all that causes them offence, then they ain't got much to complain about.

swampgas

catallus wrote: »

It is a Christmas Card, At Christmas Time, In an Overwhelmingly Christian Country.

I know it would cause malevolent joy to a lot of people if such a simple gesture was ripped asunder and consigned to the past; they would prefer a homogenised and generic piece of paper, which can mean nothing to anyone rather than one which celebrates a religious holiday.

I for one am happy that we haven't erased this part of our culture. But it seems that others see in it some form of repression. Which is silly at best.

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

It's a Christmas card with a picture of the nativity on the front :rolleyes: Some people really do seem to want to go out of their way to be offended. If that's all that causes them offence, then they ain't got much to complain about.

The nature of the card doesn't really bother me personally. I do object to the cost of the postage being borne by the taxpayer though.

As for it being "just a Christmas card", unfortunately for politicians and other public figures, nothing they do is that simple. Politicians are very wary of off-the-cuff remarks and jokes for a very good reason, as something that might be fine for anyone else can be political suicide for them. Everything they do can be considered to be sending a message. This can make politicians sound very boring and bland, but that's the reality of it.

If Enda Kenny sent out cards with (say) a message in English on it, you might get objections from Irish supporters that the message should have been in Irish. Or if he sent out an expensive card he might be critiisized for wasting money, or if he sends cheap cards he might get accused of being stingy.

To be honest it's pretty much a lose-lose situation, I'd be happier if people in government were barred by law from sending any such cards in the first place.

catallus

The issue of the cost of postage is a canard to disguise prejudice. The cost would be way below nominal anyways because it's the government sending the cards.

swampgas

catallus wrote: »

The issue of the cost of postage is a canard to disguise prejudice. The cost would be way below nominal anyways because it's the government sending the cards.

Allowing politicians to send out cards like this is subsidizing self-serving propaganda. Anyone who needs to win over the electorate should do so a bit more honestly, instead of spending the people's own money in an attempt to get their vote.

old hippy

catallus wrote: »

It is a Christmas Card, At Christmas Time, In an Overwhelmingly Christian Country.

I know it would cause malevolent joy to a lot of people if such a simple gesture was ripped asunder and consigned to the past; they would prefer a homogenised and generic piece of paper, which can mean nothing to anyone rather than one which celebrates a religious holiday.

I for one am happy that we haven't erased this part of our culture. But it seems that others see in it some form of repression. Which is silly at best.

Your culture. Which seems very exclusive, the way you frame it.

robindch

catallus wrote: »

The cost would be way below nominal anyways because it's the government sending the cards.

So it doesn't cost anything if the government does it?

catallus

swampgas wrote: »

Allowing politicians to send out cards like this is subsidizing self-serving propaganda. Anyone who needs to win over the electorate should do so a bit more honestly, instead of spending the people's own money in an attempt to get their vote.

Self-Serving propaganda is a bit strong, don't you think? It is a bloody Christmas Card! Happy Christmas? No?

old hippy wrote: »

Your culture. Which seems very exclusive, the way you frame it.

Exclusivity is the hallmark of culture. And religion is the epitome of culture.

robindch wrote: »

So it doesn't cost anything if the government does it?

Let's leave that one to the economists, shall we?

Delirium

catallus wrote: »

The issue of the cost of postage is a canard to disguise prejudice. The cost would be way below nominal anyways because it's the government sending the cards.

It's somewhat ironic to decry prejudice while defending a government official sending out cards that presumes all recipients are Christian.

lazygal

catallus wrote: »

The issue of the cost of postage is a canard to disguise prejudice. The cost would be way below nominal anyways because it's the government sending the cards.

AnPost charges state bodies the same rate for postage from a councillor as a private citizen. Either way, it is taxes, not private money, which is being spent on conveying religious messages.

Pherekydes

catallus wrote: »

Let's leave that one to the economists, shall we?

You made a claim that governmental postage is well below nominal. Why don't you back that claim up?

old hippy

catallus wrote: »

Exclusivity is the hallmark of culture. And religion is the epitome of culture.

Your myopic, insular culture perhaps. But not mine.

swampgas

catallus wrote: »

Self-Serving propaganda is a bit strong, don't you think? It is a bloody Christmas Card! Happy Christmas? No?

Propaganda is too strong, agreed. But a card from a politician I might not know, and most likely have never met? What's that if it isn't self-promotion?

Exclusivity is the hallmark of culture. And religion is the epitome of culture.

I find both of those statements slightly suspect, to be honest, but hey, vive la difference

catallus

Pherekydes wrote: »

You made a claim that governmental postage is well below nominal. Why don't you back that claim up?

It is state-owned. The costing base wouldn't begin at that of the private customer.

old hippy wrote: »

Your myopic, insular culture perhaps. But not mine.

I'm sure it makes you feel just grand to be so disdainful.

swampgas wrote: »

I find both of those statements slightly suspect, to be honest, but hey, vive la difference

Indeed.

lazygal

An Post is a semi state company.

catallus

lazygal wrote: »

An Post is a semi state company.

Without dragging this OT it is a state-owned limited company.

old hippy

catallus wrote: »

I'm sure it makes you feel just grand to be so disdainful.

It actually makes me saddened when people dismiss the concerns of those who don't buy into an archaic way of doing things. Your revered politican is forcing his or her religious beliefs unto others and you positively encourage it.

People here have raised genuine concerns and yet all you can do is claim your culture is under threat. How twee.

lazygal

catallus wrote: »

Without dragging this OT it is a state-owned limited company.

And do you have proof that postage for policitians is at below a nominal cost? If it is, its costing the state revenues from postal services, as well as the cost of the cards.

Harry Angstrom

This seems to have shifted from a discussion about the offence caused to the OP of receiving a traditional Christmas card to the actual cost to the taxpayer of sending them.
Perhaps those who are defending the OP feel on safer ground by focusing on the cost element rather than the original point about how a Christmas card could cause offence to somebody.

Delirium

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

This seems to have shifted from a discussion about the offence caused to the OP of receiving a traditional Christmas card to the actual cost to the taxpayer of sending them.
Perhaps those who are defending the OP feel on safer ground by focusing on the cost element rather than the original point about how a Christmas card could cause offence to somebody.

where does it say that in the OP?

Sarky wrote: »

Someone left an unmarked envelope in at my house earlier today. I just opened it, and it consists of one of those dull nativity scene Christmas cards with a bible verse and "May Christ bless you & yours" stuff on the inside, and a letter from Cork city council where a Fianna Fail-associated Cllr. Kenneth Noel O'Flynn P.C. is wishing me a holy and happy Christmas. Poor chap seems to think I'm a christian, along with everyone else on the street. That'd probably be a surprise to the halal food shop down the road, but I digress...

The letter is official City Council headed paper, I seem to remember there being some upset about politicians using official paper like this. Can anyone jog my memory, or otherwise provide info on whether it's just him being a bit tasteless or if he's skirting the borders of what's legal?

catallus

old hippy wrote: »

It actually makes me saddened when people dismiss the concerns of those who don't buy into an archaic way of doing things. Your revered politican is forcing his or her religious beliefs unto others and you positively encourage it.

People here have raised genuine concerns and yet all you can do is claim your culture is under threat. How twee.

Revered politician? Try harder oldhippy

Nobody is forcing religious beliefs on anyone, even the OP wasn't going that far.

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

This seems to have shifted from a discussion about the offence caused to the OP of receiving a traditional Christmas card to the actual cost to the taxpayer of sending them.
Perhaps those who are defending the OP feel on safer ground by focusing on the cost element rather than the original point about how a Christmas card could cause offence to somebody.

I think it is being used as a shield by those who would like to pretend that they are not intolerant and prejudiced against a perceived enemy (in the form of the easy cheap and safe target of religiosity and communal celebration), when in fact they are just subsuming their hatred in a pre-approved fashion.

It costs nothing to be self-deluded.

Harry Angstrom

koth wrote: »

where does it say that in the OP?

I believe the OP described it as "tasteless".

"Sending them all a picture of the virgin Mary in a stable and wishing them a happy christmas is at the very least totally tactless. I certainly think it's bad taste."

Knasher

catallus wrote: »

The issue of the cost of postage is a canard to disguise prejudice.

As you have made it perfectly clear that you consider this to be a non-issue, perhaps you aren't the most qualified person to decide what the issue is.

catallus wrote: »

Self-Serving propaganda is a bit strong, don't you think? It is a bloody Christmas Card! Happy Christmas? No?

Every year we receive at home christmas cards from various companies we have contracted with over the year. I'm not naive enough to think they specifically wished me well as their printer scrolled through their database of customers and printed my name on a card. It is a form of targeted advertising, it doesn't do much for me personally (unlike the bottle of wine that accompanies some of the cards), but I wouldn't count it against them either. It is probably a relatively effective advertising campaign.

They are a private company paying for advertising out of their own pockets. I've yet to see or hear a single complaint from anybody. I'm simply not in the target demographic.

This thread is about a government official using public funds to send christmas cards. The fact that they are christmas cards is important primarily because I doubt some people would try and defend them if Cllr. O'Flynn decided to send around cards on the lead up to some sporting final, wishing the Cork team well, using tax payer funds. Or what I would interpret as advertising to another majority demographic in Cork. If he wishes to advertise in this fashion, then let him pay for it out of his own pocket. I'd be happy to receive such a card in the spirit it was sent (blatant but acceptable self promotion). It is also a little alienating to receive targeted advertising from a politician aimed at a group you're not a member of, but it is par the course in Irish politics.

catallus

Knasher wrote: »

As you have made it perfectly clear that you consider this to be a non-issue, perhaps you aren't the most qualified person to decide what the issue is.

What is the point of that sentence?

..........

Knasher wrote: »

This thread is about a government official using public funds to send christmas cards. The fact that they are christmas cards is important primarily because I doubt some people would try and defend them if Cllr. O'Flynn decided to send around cards on the lead up to some sporting final, wishing the Cork team well, using tax payer funds. Or what I would interpret as advertising to another majority demographic in Cork. If he wishes to advertise in this fashion, then let him pay for it out of his own pocket. I'd be happy to receive such a card in the spirit it was sent (blatant but acceptable self promotion). It is also a little alienating to receive targeted advertising from a politician aimed at a group you're not a member of, but it is par the course in Irish politics.

Should politicians be proscribed from all postal communication with their constituents unless they can pay for it themselves? (This has been suggested earlier by a particularly vehement poster)

Hotblack Desiato

catallus wrote: »

Nobody is forcing religious beliefs on anyone, even the OP wasn't going that far.

No. But he is using taxpayers' money not just to promote himself, but to promote himself to followers of a specific religion on the basis of his membership of that religion rather than any of his other qualities. This is an appeal to primitive bigotry, really - 'he's one of us lads'.

He even added bible verses on the front, just in case anyone didn't get the message.

It'll also lose him votes from the rapidly increasing number of non-members of that religion, but that's his tough luck.

It costs nothing to be self-deluded.

You are expected to put money on the plate every Sunday, though.

catallus wrote: »

Should politicians be proscribed from all postal communication with their constituents unless they can pay for it themselves? (This has been suggested earlier by a particularly vehement poster)

Yeah. The purpose of it is not to benefit the voters, but the politician himself and at the voters' expense.
It's also unfair to opposing candidates who don't have the benefit of taxpayer largesse to seek election, and promote themselves in advance of an election.

robindch

catallus wrote: »

Let's leave that one to the economists, shall we?

You're the one making the claim that it's cheaper if the government does it.

Would you like to back up your silly claim or would you prefer to withdraw it?

Hotblack Desiato

Bulk mail is cheaper, especially if pre-sorted. Unaddressed bulk mail is much cheaper again.

However, I very much doubt under EU state aid rules that An Post would be allowed to give the government or any type of state body a better or worse deal than a commercial entity would get.

Or perhaps the argument is that if the state pays a state body to do something, it doesn't actually cost anything? Well, that's false, as there's the opportunity cost of what else could have been done with that money.

catallus

robindch wrote: »

You're the one making the claim that it's cheaper if the government does it.

Would you like to back up your silly claim or would you prefer to withdraw it?

It is cheaper if the government does it. Pre-sorted unaddressed bulk mail is dirt-cheap. The cost base is negligible.

Hotblack Desiato

That is exactly the opposite of what I said, actually, and just because it's cheaper than going into the post office to buy stamps doesn't mean it's in any way cheap.

swampgas

catallus wrote: »

It is cheaper if the government does it. Like Ninja pointed out, pre-sorted unaddressed bulk mail is dirt-cheap. The cost base is negligible.

The government can (and should) avail of cheap postage to serve the people, it shouldn't be allowed for an incumbent to abuse such postage for the purpose of self-promotion.

If bulk postage is so cheap that we shouldn't be concerned - dirt-cheap, as you put it - then surely the politician and his party can easily arrange to pay for it out of their own pockets?