Are Enda Kenny and Micheal Martin leaders?

realitykeeper

It has been said that Enda Kenny is not a conviction politician. So if he has no convictions (please refrain from the obvious) why is he in politics. Could it be that he is in it for himself?
As for Micheal Martin, apart from his years at Bertie`s side and his recent appointment of a political opportunist - what has he to offer. Without brain transplants, I don`t think either of them have anything other than what we have seen already.
The reason I single out this pair is because they are supposed to represent the center right. I think what they fail to understand is that you cannot serve two masters. One cannot successfully be a giver and a taker at the same time. I think the late Charles Haughey had the right idea when he explained the challenges facing the country on TV and then set about imposing necessary reforms. The fact that Haughey may not have applied austerity on himself was wrong but leaving his personal hypocrisy aside, he was otherwise correct in what he did.
This country needs a leader who will stand up and say the country needs austerity on a scale never before seen by any country in the history of humanity. Only by promising to stand on the principle of treating every single taxpayers euro with greater care than they have for their own children will this country have a future. The politicians must promise nothing but years of misery and suffering - and by doing so they will gain the respect and the trust of the people. Telling the truth no matter how bad it may be will always be worth it in the end. Sugar coating the truth is like trying to serve two masters. It can`t be done.
Since neither Kenny or Martin have the courage or the intelligence to tell the truth - who would be the best person to replace them? In my view, FF and FG should merge as one party and Michael O`Leary of Ryanair should lead it.

mikemac1

realitykeeper wrote: »

I think the late Charles Haughey had the right idea when he explained the challenges facing the country on TV and then set about imposing necessary reforms.

Public spending, borrowing and taxation all increased after that speech. There was no real reform under that government.

Mack the knife came much later

golfwallah

All Great leaders, in the words of economist John Kenneth Galbraith, “have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership.”

Our guys (of all parties) seem to focus too much on short-term opinion polls / getting re-elected and not enough on the more important long term issues of building better economic conditions for our future well being (including removing the crippling debt overhang).

With this in mind, compare how our elected leaders are confronting the major issues of their day with the performance of widely acknowledged great leaders of their day and decide for yourself, for example:

Abraham Lincoln’s ability to assemble a team of the best people for the job, even though they had rivalled and disagreed with him in the past. “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” focuses on Lincoln's mostly successful attempts to reconcile conflicting personalities and political factions on the path to abolition and victory in the American Civil War.

Churchill, from his very first speech to Parliament as Prime Minister, on 13th May 1940 – “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat”.... “You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival”: http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/churchillbloodspeech.htm

Roosevelt, declaring war on Japan on 8th December 1941 – “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK8gYGg0dkE

We also have examples from our own history such as Daniel O'Connell, Michael Collins, to name a few .... but Enda and Michael have a lot to prove yet!

realitykeeper

mikemac1 wrote: »

Public spending, borrowing and taxation all increased after that speech. There was no real reform under that government.

Mack the knife came much later

I know there was no reform after that speech but had there been it would have been correct. Haughey did reform and deliver on that speech years later (admittedly after promising a spending splurge).

Freddie Dodge

I think our systems of governance don't encourage strong leadership. To get elected in the first place unless you are a contrarian candidate, you must be a slavish servant of the current system of nepotistic party politics. Difference is frowned upon in the main parties, and they cannibalise dissenters.

Its interesting that the two examples mentioned already in the thread were 75 and 150 years ago respectively.

I would contend that great leaders in political democracies are rare, and that of the few who may be hidden in the rank and file of political parties, that only in times of extreme crisis will the others or indeed the general public elect them.

I think the best example in the world today is Obama, who lets not forget, would never have been elected but for the colour of his skin. The Democrats wanted Hillary, but the general public and black America decided otherwise. Whether you agree or not with what he has or has not done, he has certainly provided leadership.

ninty9er

The system is flawed in that it doesn't require voters to actually understand the purpose they elect TDs for before granting a franchise.

Benevolent dictatorships FTW :pac:

golfwallah

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

I think our systems of governance don't encourage strong leadership. To get elected in the first place unless you are a contrarian candidate, you must be a slavish servant of the current system of nepotistic party politics. Difference is frowned upon in the main parties, and they cannibalise dissenters.

Its interesting that the two examples mentioned already in the thread were 75 and 150 years ago respectively.

I would contend that great leaders in political democracies are rare, and that of the few who may be hidden in the rank and file of political parties, that only in times of extreme crisis will the others or indeed the general public elect them.

I think the best example in the world today is Obama, who lets not forget, would never have been elected but for the colour of his skin. The Democrats wanted Hillary, but the general public and black America decided otherwise. Whether you agree or not with what he has or has not done, he has certainly provided leadership.

You could be right – maybe we need another crisis, changed practicalities and a step change in the mood of the people for a real leader to emerge – “cometh the hour, cometh the man”, etc.

Before attaining victory at Antietam, Lincoln did not totally support abolition (even though he was attacked for being an abolitionist, he did not consider himself one). There was also the practical matter of needing freed slaves for his armies.

Before Churchill’s appointment, people in Britain were content with Neville Chamberlain and “peace in our time” until events proved that National Government would be impossible as long as Chamberlain was leader. Churchill, having opposed appeasement, was the obvious choice as successor.

Before the US declared war on Japan, Roosevelt went along with isolationism – in public at least.

Maybe the same applies to our situation right now – time will tell. Tonight’s speech aside, there are a number of possible successors to Enda in the background – Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveney, but it is early days yet and these guys still have to show their full mettle.

renegademaster

i'm sorry but ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I wouldn't leave them in charge of a scissors in my house!

golfwallah

renegademaster wrote: »

i'm sorry but ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I wouldn't leave them in charge of a scissors in my house!

It's very easy to ridicule politicians and political leaders. And, if you think about it, those that do put their heads above the parapet, get involved or go forward for election do put a lot of their personal lives on the line (almost 24 hours a day, I would think). In other words they have to be prepared to risk a lot through engagement with the system and all its complexity, precedent and myriad of legacy practices and decisions.

Little wonder that so many of the most able people don't go forward.

But that's the system we have - democracy ain't perfect but, in the long run, it has proved a lot better than the alternatives (of either the left or right wing variety) that have been tried.

sanbrafyffe

Kenny is a good leader,but not the greatest politician,,,Michael martin well I don't know where to start

Harry Angstrom

The only reason Kenny is Taioseach is because he managed to stick around long enough in the Dail. He should have stuck to the teaching.

derferjam

Politics’ is a mess based on the fact that the ethics and core value of it is lost.
You can have all the money in the world to fix things but you still need the people to build it.
Politics has lost the people and politicians their visions of what a true politician stands for.
A people will follow a leader and a leader create a mountain for all to aspire to reach the tip of…
True greatness makes things simple for all to see and feel safe to follow

IrishProd

They are two cheeks of the same arse but Enda Kenny is the better leader but not the best we have, Micheal Martin on the otherhand is a weasel and an arrogant & ignorant hypocrite.

Harry Angstrom

Is anyone else having trouble viewing this thread? It's all scrunched onto the left hand side of my screen and is almost impossible to read.

IrishProd

derferjam wrote: »

Who was the best or is the greatest Labour Party Leader of all time…
• TOM JOHNSON
• TJ O'CONNELL
• WILLIAM NORTON
• BRENDAN CORISH
• FRANK CLUSKEY
• MICHAEL O'LEARY
• DICK SPRING
• RUAIRI QUINN
• PAT RABBITTE

Give a reason why?

That does not belong in this thread, stop derailing it.

_Kaiser_

sanbrafyffe wrote: »

Kenny is a good leader,but not the greatest politician,,,Michael martin well I don't know where to start

Are you forgetting Bruton tried to overthrow him not that long ago? Good leader indeed!

Kenny is a career politician. In the Dail since 1975(!!) after "inheriting" the seat from his father and was 24 when he did so with only a few years primary school teaching behind him. What the people of Mayo thought he had to offer the country is beyond me!

He lied to get into power, continued the same policies he and his party said would be changed, and he's shown quite clearly over the last few years that he is nothing more than a front for his EU masters - more concerned with serving them than the people who stupidly believed him. "Truly Madly Deeply European" indeed! Watch next as he retires off to the EU presidency rather than face the electorate.

He refuses to debate, or even stand behind his own (supposed) convictions - such as in the recent Seanad referendum where I personally believe him sending out that same Bruton was what cost him the result. It came off as arrogant and out of touch (both accurate but not something a frustrated electorate responds to). Even when he DOES respond (safely behind the doors of the Dail) he can't do it without pathetic attempts to defect the questions/points being made and trying to appear "clever" on TV.

I actually contacted him personally once a few years back when he was leader of the opposition over some latest FF scandal - his response (from his iPhone no less) was effectively "what's it to do with me?". That told me pretty much everything I needed to know about the man. FG would be much better if Bruton HAD succeeded a few years ago.


As for Martin.. he's another 2nd-rate politician left over from the last administration whose party should never see power again, but of course they will.. in a few years it'll be FF's turn at the wheel again and the same farce will continue.

We have only ourselves to blame though.. as an electorate we don't "do" change or different. Anything that stands out is to be hammered down, anyone successful or good at something to be the subject of begrudgery, and god forbid we considered an alternative to the pathetic joke that is FF and FG.

This country has failed and anyone who has a choice and no ties to it should leave and never look back.

For Reals

Martin is a caretaker until the next Haughey comes along. Kenny is an accountant.

golfwallah

Needs to be a clean out of the old guard in FF before they can seriously challenge in a general election.

And Enda is a teacher - not an accountant!

Phoebas

golfwallah wrote: »

And Enda is a teacher - not an accountant!

He was a teacher for a couple of years three decades ago

Hannibal

If Enda was a leader he'd go in and happily debate face to face with any other politician to show his leadership qualities. The fact that Bruton tried to overthrow him not long before the GE shows even his party aren't unanimous behind him. Enda has struck the last few years as someone who will lie to get into power and who will lie while in power to fool people to keep him in power.

We have seen Enda and Gilmore putting their own personal interests above the national interest. They are career politicians who will sell out themselves and stab people in the back to get to the top. In Ireland what we have lacked by successive governments is a willingness to put the country first and break the cycle of corruption. No government party in the last 25 years have done this

ressem

Kenny and Noonan are reputed to be the toughest politicians that Fine Gael have. A lot more unsentimentally practical than either of the Brutons, Varadkars etc and don't have a long term career to worry about as they are over 60s.

But plenty in their party are more comfortable in media spotlights and seek the name recognition and they are granted it.

Seems like a decent approach.
Problem I have is with not catching transparently foreseeable flaws in their legislation and reluctance to work with the few genuine attempts by non-FG TDs by accepting amendments.

I know that the TV and radio coverage makes it look worse than it is (looking at oireachtas transcripts) by repeated showing of when the Dail Questions descends into a chimpanzee party. But it still needs to improve or we'll have hundreds more millions thrown away in legal expenses in the future.

Banjoxed

This is what I think of every time I hear clamour for "leadership":

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-9TbdOQJOFg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-9TbdOQJOFg

I well remember the hysterical fanaticism of local FFers for that charlatan Haughey when I was a teenager and have been cynical about such "leaders" ever since. It isn't a "leader" we need its simple competency in the people we, as citizens of Ireland, vote for. So the responsibility for the future of this place lies with ourselves alone.

MouseTail

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Are you forgetting Bruton tried to overthrow him not that long ago? Good leader indeed!
.

Being the subject of a heave does not mean a leader was is a flawed or bad. How the heave is dealt with shows the mettle. Kenny showed strength, whereas Martin has showed weakness recently over the protection of life bill, im not sure he would survive a heave.

on the river

MouseTail wrote: »

Being the subject of a heave does not mean a leader was is a flawed or bad. How the heave is dealt with shows the mettle. Kenny showed strength, whereas Martin has showed weakness recently over the protection of life bill, im not sure he would survive a heave.

Rubbish they are both crap . you obvious dont know a good politican . They would have nothing on Devalera or collins