General Election 2020 - See MOD note in First Post

AdMMM

Greens are a mess right now. Essentially a heave against the party leader who increased their representation from 2 TDs to 12 TDs by the grassroots who don't want to go into government. Ó Cathasaigh has supported Ryan which is the right thing to do, but that will probably see him lose out once the dust settles thanks to a grassroots that haven't a clue how politics works.

wagtail99

AdMMM wrote: »

Greens are a mess right now. Essentially a heave against the party leader who increased their representation from 2 TDs to 12 TDs by the grassroots who don't want to go into government. Ó Cathasaigh has supported Ryan which is the right thing to do, but that will probably see him lose out once the dust settles thanks to a grassroots that haven't a clue how politics works.

I wouldn't give them a vote in the last election due to Ryan, after hearing him announce on radio that the historical event he would most like to have been around to experience was 'Jesus in Jeruselem'. There is a scary religious element to some o these Greens, and that makes me run a mile from them. I also don't like the gaelgoer side of the Waterford TD.
The Greens will lose their seat in Waterford in the next election when SF win 2 seats (therefore no transfers) and FG run only a single candidate.

Imreoir2

wagtail99 wrote: »

I wouldn't give them a vote in the last election due to Ryan, after hearing him announce on radio that the historical event he would most like to have been around to experience was 'Jesus in Jeruselem'. There is a scary religious element to some o these Greens, and that makes me run a mile from them. I also don't like the gaelgoer side of the Waterford TD.
The Greens will lose their seat in Waterford in the next election when SF win 2 seats (therefore no transfers) and FG run only a single candidate.

Two SF seats is far from certain. They are still not very transfer friendly and there is no reason to assume that the major increase they got in the GE just gone will stick with them. Cullinane is safe, but it could easily happen that McGuinness falls short.

The two FG candidates did not get a quota between them. Hard to see Cummins getting more votes for himself in the West of the county than Geoghegan got.

I can't say I have come accross much of of religious element in the Greens, the parties policies certainly don't suggest it anyway.

friendlyfun

wagtail99 wrote: »

I wouldn't give them a vote in the last election due to Ryan, after hearing him announce on radio that the historical event he would most like to have been around to experience was 'Jesus in Jeruselem'. There is a scary religious element to some o these Greens, and that makes me run a mile from them. I also don't like the gaelgoer side of the Waterford TD.
The Greens will lose their seat in Waterford in the next election when SF win 2 seats (therefore no transfers) and FG run only a single candidate.

Wanting to experience Jesus in Jerusalem doesn't indicate he is some religious wack job or even religious. I think he understands the significance of that time and has an an understandable curiosity about it. Ryan understands the significance of Christianity on Christianity world whether you're religious or not. Christianity still forms a basis for western civilisation.

The fact that you don't like someone because they are a Gaeilgoir is also incomprehensible. It's not like he's forcing you to do picture stories again for the leaving cert. Imagine someone in Ireland wants and likes to speaks Irish. The shock and horror.

Quigs Snr

wagtail99 wrote: »

I wouldn't give them a vote in the last election due to Ryan, after hearing him announce on radio that the historical event he would most like to have been around to experience was 'Jesus in Jeruselem'. There is a scary religious element to some o these Greens, and that makes me run a mile from them. I also don't like the gaelgoer side of the Waterford TD.
The Greens will lose their seat in Waterford in the next election when SF win 2 seats (therefore no transfers) and FG run only a single candidate.

I wouldnt vote green at gunpoint. Not because i dont support their policies but because of the wack jobs they normally put forward. Their party leader being exhibit A.

To be fair.. i would love to go back to the same place and period as him from a historical perspective to see what the whole jesus myth grew from and whether there was really a single historical figure it was built on.

The gaelic name etc.. each to their own. A childhood of being taught irish using methods from the 1800s embedded a deep hatred of the language in me. Compared to french which i loved because it was taught in a practical way that i have used many times since. But i dont blame Casey for that.

He wont survive a re election however. Id still have him over 2 of the other 3.

wagtail99

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Two SF seats is far from certain. They are still not very transfer friendly and there is no reason to assume that the major increase they got in the GE just gone will stick with them. Cullinane is safe, but it could easily happen that McGuinness falls short.

The two FG candidates did not get a quota between them. Hard to see Cummins getting more votes for himself in the West of the county than Geoghegan got.

I can't say I have come accross much of of religious element in the Greens, the parties policies certainly don't suggest it anyway.

1. Sinn Fein and FG have gone up in national opinion polls since the election, so no reason to belive their respective parties' votes should go down in Waterford.
In Waterford FG got 8k+ first pref in GE2020 compared to just less than 4k for the Greens, hard to see that gap being closed if they only have a single candidate next time. Yes I agree it is hard to see Cummins get too many more votes, but I'd guess they'll look at neither of the prev. two runners. Maybe look to yer man, the ex-senator and TD, from Portlaw (I forget his name) or a completely new candidate. A long shot might even see Shanahan jump over to them.

2. The missus opened to door to ex Green TD and Minister the Rev. Trevor Sargent canvassing for Casey during the election. The rev. does talks around the country promoting religion and green issues.
The Green party were part of the government that brought in the completely uneceesary blasphemy legisation. It would have had to be approved by the Green ministers in the cabinet. At the time I was really surprised by this from a party that you would think want to be seen as progressives. It got kinda lost/missed as the time, 2009, the country was in the depth of a serious recession.

wagtail99

friendlyfun wrote: »

snip

The fact that you don't like someone because they are a Gaeilgoir is also incomprehensible. It's not like he's forcing you to do picture stories again for the leaving cert. Imagine someone in Ireland wants and likes to speaks Irish. The shock and horror.

I have no problem with anybody if sincerely all the want is to speak Irish (or any other language) in Ireland. However I am very wary of the gaelgoers because I dont think it is only about love of language, it is as much about money and jobbery. I asked a Gaelscoil teacher recently if he would send his own children to a gaelscoil and his answer was, " Yes, it has been good to me" i.e. giving me a good living.
The requirement for all public documents to be translated in Gaelige is crazy. Just try asking any of the public bodies how many people request these documents. I believe is all about money/jobs for gaelic speakers. FFS you cant even become a Primary School teacher if you haven't honours Gaelige, but no such requirement for English and Maths, how crazy is that.

Imreoir2

wagtail99 wrote: »

1. Sinn Fein and FG have gone up in national opinion polls since the election, so no reason to belive their respective parties' votes should go down in Waterford.
In Waterford FG got 8k+ first pref in GE2020 compared to just less than 4k for the Greens, hard to see that gap being closed if they only have a single candidate next time. Yes I agree it is hard to see Cummins get too many more votes, but I'd guess they'll look at neither of the prev. two runners. Maybe look to yer man, the ex-senator and TD, from Portlaw (I forget his name) or a completely new candidate. A long shot might even see Shanahan jump over to them.

2. The missus opened to door to ex Green TD and Minister the Rev. Trevor Sargent canvassing for Casey during the election. The rev. does talks around the country promoting religion and green issues.
The Green party were part of the government that brought in the completely uneceesary blasphemy legisation. It would have had to be approved by the Green ministers in the cabinet. At the time I was really surprised by this from a party that you would think want to be seen as progressives. It got kinda lost/missed as the time, 2009, the country was in the depth of a serious recession.

I think FG is lining Cummins up to be their sole candidate in the next GE, they made him a senator. Hard to see them putting anyone else forward. You can't count all of Geoghegan's votes as going to Cummins (assuming he is the sole candidate). Nearly half of Geoghegan's votes did not transfer to Cummins when he was eliminated.

Trevor Sargent lives in Tramore, I don't think most people would consider Protestants to be a "scary religious element".

The requirement for all public documents to be translated in Gaelige is crazy. Just try asking any of the public bodies how many people request these documents. I believe is all about money/jobs for gaelic speakers. FFS you cant even become a Primary School teacher if you haven't honours Gaelige, but no such requirement for English and Maths, how crazy is that.

What is wrong with someone using their skills to earn a living? The ability to speak Irish is a skill, one for which there is demand in both the public and private sectors. My wife is a translater who mostly works on technical translations for major tech companies who localise their products for the European market for example. Irish is the first language of the state, Irish speakers have as much right to receive public services through their own language as English speakers do. The reality, as any Irish speaker could tell you, is that the state is not even able to meet the limited demand for services through Irish that there is. If anything the entry requirements for teachers needs to be tightened up. Honours Irish is a bit of a joke, it is drasticly below the language ability required to get an honours in English, for example. There is a significant problem with the standard of Irish among teachers with many not having sufficient Irish to teach the language properly.

hardybuck

Re next election - impossible to tell who'd go forward at this point. Could be another one in 3 months, could be another one in four years.

On another day FG could have gotten two seats and will get one next time out I think. The transfers in 2020 were all over the place. PBP got 2.1% of first preferences and were eliminated at count 5/8 by a narrow margin, while Aontú got 2% and were gone at count 2.

If Cummins was a stronger candidate he would have done better than getting the third highest portion of first preferences of the city candidates.

Taking Paudie Coffey's seat in Seanad will raise his profile and give him a taste of working at a higher level, but Paudie exited stage left after showing promise as a TD so anything is possible.

Trevor Sargent is a really well respected individual, Waterford is probably fortunate to have someone of his caliber working in the community, and I think it's a shame some people are resentful of him based upon his religious beliefs.

wagtail99

hardybuck wrote: »

Trevor Sargent is a really well respected individual, Waterford is probably fortunate to have someone of his caliber working in the community, and I think it's a shame some people are resentful of him based upon his religious beliefs.

A previous poster mentioned they hadn't noticed a religious tinge to the Greens. I provided a few examples, one which was Rev. Trevor Sargent who actively promotes 'religion with environmentalism', he does talks around the country on this subject. I don't resent him at all based on his religion, I just won't vote for a party that I feel is tinged/influenced with religion. I wouldn't vote for Fianna Fail for the same reason.

friendlyfun

wagtail99 wrote: »

A previous poster mentioned they hadn't noticed a religious tinge to the Greens. I provided a few examples, one which was Rev. Trevor Sargent who actively promotes 'religion with environmentalism', he does talks around the country on this subject. I don't resent him at all based on his religion, I just won't vote for a party that I feel is tinged/influenced with religion. I wouldn't vote for Fianna Fail for the same reason.

Sergeant is no longer a politician. I actually think religion and promoting a good relationship with the environment is a good unlike the Christian funda-mentalists in the US who who think because jesus is coming soon they might aswell destroy the planent while they're at it.

hardybuck

wagtail99 wrote: »

A previous poster mentioned they hadn't noticed a religious tinge to the Greens. I provided a few examples, one which was Rev. Trevor Sargent who actively promotes 'religion with environmentalism', he does talks around the country on this subject. I don't resent him at all based on his religion, I just won't vote for a party that I feel is tinged/influenced with religion. I wouldn't vote for Fianna Fail for the same reason.

That's fair enough. It is still a shame if you're scared about religious influence in politics. As per the 2016 Census 9.8% of the population identified themselves as having no religion, but that means that 90.2% do identify themselves with a particular religion.

Even if we agree that we should have a more secular approach to Government and to policy making, inevitably that will be very difficult if individuals in decision making roles continue to be drawn from a society that's overwhelmingly Catholic or from other religious backgrounds.

wagtail99

friendlyfun wrote: »

Sergeant is no longer a politician. I actually think religion and promoting a good relationship with the environment is a good unlike the Christian funda-mentalists in the US who who think because jesus is coming soon they might aswell destroy the planent while they're at it.

Rev. Trevor Sargent is an ex Green TD and Minister, who actively campaigned for Casey in Waterford. Are you saying I shouldn't make any judgement on a politician according to who they have on their campaign trail?
If you set your political standards by "Oh, but it's better than what they do in the US", then you might as well take up shooting fish in a barrel as a hobby :-)

Imreoir2

wagtail99 wrote: »

Rev. Trevor Sargent is an ex Green TD and Minister, who actively campaigned for Casey in Waterford. Are you saying I shouldn't make any judgement on a politician according to who they have on their campaign trail?

Of course you can, but suggesting that Trevor Sargent, or protestants more broadly are a "scary religious element" is a bit bonkers if you ask me.

friendlyfun

Trevor Seargant is no longer a politician. Don't know how him being involved with the COI is a problem. If you want to look at religious extremism how FF protected Catholic church cover ups.

Squidvicious

hardybuck wrote: »

That's fair enough. It is still a shame if you're scared about religious influence in politics. As per the 2016 Census 9.8% of the population identified themselves as having no religion, but that means that 90.2% do identify themselves with a particular religion.

Even if we agree that we should have a more secular approach to Government and to policy making, inevitably that will be very difficult if individuals in decision making roles continue to be drawn from a society that's overwhelmingly Catholic or from other religious backgrounds.

Agree with this. The problem with Wagtail's approach is that, by that logic, he will only vote for atheists. Just like it would be completely wrong for catholics, say, to refuse to vote for somebody because they're some other religion or no religion at all, it's all wrong to write somebody off just because they're religious. I'm not religious at all, but I certainly wouldn't discriminate against somebody because they are. Sometimes I think that we've learned nothing in this country and we're out to make all the same mistakes again in reverse. Now, if he supports a policy that you disagree with, that's another thing completely.

hardybuck

Squidvicious wrote: »

Agree with this. The problem with Wagtail's approach is that, by that logic, he will only vote for atheists. Just like it would be completely wrong for catholics, say, to refuse to vote for somebody because they're some other religion or no religion at all, it's all wrong to write somebody off just because they're religious. I'm not religious at all, but I certainly wouldn't discriminate against somebody because they are. Sometimes I think that we've learned nothing in this country and we're out to make all the same mistakes again in reverse. Now, if he supports a policy that you disagree with, that's another thing completely.

Agree with this too. It's a complicated one.

SF are again another conundrum in this regard. They want a more secular approach to things, but then in Northern Ireland you'll vote for them if you're Catholic and won't if you're Protestant - and a lot of that is down to discrimination experienced on all sides.

wagtail99

Squidvicious wrote: »

Agree with this. The problem with Wagtail's approach is that, by that logic, he will only vote for atheists. Just like it would be completely wrong for catholics, say, to refuse to vote for somebody because they're some other religion or no religion at all, it's all wrong to write somebody off just because they're religious. I'm not religious at all, but I certainly wouldn't discriminate against somebody because they are. Sometimes I think that we've learned nothing in this country and we're out to make all the same mistakes again in reverse. Now, if he supports a policy that you disagree with, that's another thing completely.

You mean something like, say, introducing Dail legislation making blasphemy a crime.

Squidvicious

wagtail99 wrote: »

You mean something like, say, introducing Dail legislation making blasphemy a crime.

Have a look on wikipedia. Blasphemy as an offence was actually required by the 1937 constitution. The 2009 Act was intended to limit that and clarify the law. Presumably the government decided to
clean up the law in that area and decided not to go to the expense of a referendum for something that was fairly obsolete in this day and age. Blasphemy as an offence was removed from the constitution in 2018. The Green party supported its removal so that doesn't exactly suggest that they're a crowd of God botherers. You're making out that there were no blasphemy laws in Ireland until the greens dreamed one up in 2009. The green party didn't exist in 1937.

I'm neither a Green party supporter nor do I believe in any God. Actually, they'd be fairly near the bottom of my list of parties to vote for, far too left wing for my liking. But I find your reasoning a bit bizarre. The greens don't strike me as being any way beholden to religion. They supported the legalisation of gay marriage and abortion, for example, both opposed by most churches. Your logic seems to be that a former prominent green politician(Trevor Sargent) is religious, they supported a blasphemy law, so you won't vote for them. I doubt there's a party in Ireland doesn't have some religious people in it. The greens have some Christian members and presumably members of other religions too. Is this seriously a problem? I'm atheist but I think that religious people have a place in our society same as anyone else, no need to write them off.

wagtail99

Squidvicious wrote: »

Have a look on wikipedia. Blasphemy as an offence was actually required by the 1937 constitution. The 2009 Act was intended to limit that and clarify the law. Presumably the government decided to
clean up the law in that area and decided not to go to the expense of a referendum for something that was fairly obsolete in this day and age. Blasphemy as an offence was removed from the constitution in 2018. The Green party supported its removal. You're making out that there were no blasphemy laws in Ireland until the greens dreamed one up in 2009. The green party didn't exist in 1937.

I'm neither a Green party supporter nor do I believe in any God. Actually they'd be fairly near the bottom of my list of parties to vote for, far too left wing for my liking. But I find your reasoning a bit bizarre. The greens don't strike me as being any way beholden to religion. They supported the legalisation of gay marriage and abortion. Your logic seems to be that a former prominent green politician(Trevor Sargent) is religious, they supported a blasphemy law, so you won't vote for them. I doubt there's a party in Ireland doesn't have some religious people in it. The greens have some Christian members and presumably members of other religions too. Is this seriously a problem?

They could very very easily have left it alone and just waited a year or 2 and have a referendum the next time country had to go to the polls for an election (national due in 2011, or local), no time at all in the lifetime of the constitution, that you mention was introduced in 1937. Instead they introduced legislation making it a crime, according to my amateur legal understanding it wasn't a crime that, say, the gardai could have charged somebody with previously. Indeed AFAIK there was no Dail legislation/statutes on blasphemy before FF/Greens decided to introduce it, so nothing to clean up there. And at thd time, 2009, this legislation seemed to just come out of no where, no public clamour for it, no national debate, nothing.

As an aside, you mention the Greens being far too left-wing for you, that's certainly not where their votes come from, just look at where their transfers go (all over the place).

Squidvicious

wagtail99 wrote: »

They could very very easily have left it alone and just waited a year or 2 and have a referendum the next time country had to go to the polls for an election (national due in 2011, or local), no time at all in the lifetime of the constitution, that you mention was introduced in 1937. Instead they introduced legislation making it a crime, according to my amateur legal understanding it wasn't a crime that, say, the gardai could have charged somebody with previously. Indeed AFAIK there was no Dail legislation/statutes on blasphemy before FF/Greens decided to introduce it, so nothing to clean up there. And at thd time, 2009, this legislation seemed to just come out of no where, no public clamour for it, no national debate, nothing.

As an aside, you mention the Greens being far too left-wing for you, that's certainly not where their votes come from, just look at where their transfers go (all over the place).

The 2009 law did not come out of nowhere. I'm sorry, I can't link at the moment, but if you look at the wikipedia page, you will see mention of a 1999 case which said that the existing pre independence blasphemy law was not compatible with the constitution so that's why the law needed changing. You could say that it was hardly urgent but most laws that governments introduce aren't urgent but not being urgent doesn't mean it's not necessary. If a law is unconstitutional, a government is supposed to fix the law. As far as my also amateur knowledge of the law goes, the reason why the new law was made criminal was because the wording of the constitution meant that it needed to be made a criminal matter. Perhaps they should have brought it to referendum but perhaps they didn't fancy a public debate on the issue and were concerned about how the vote might go?

Whatever, it's still not a very strong base for condemning the green party as being religious. As I said, they supported the introduction of gay marriage and abortion and also the eventual removal of blasphemy from the constitution just 9 years later. Apart from Trevor Sargent being religious, have you any other examples of green policies being influenced by religion?

I take your point about their voters not being left wing, you're probably right there. I suppose people vote for them for environmental reasons and also perhaps as a protest against FF/FG. But their economic policies look very leftist to me at least. One thing I am fairly sure of is that their voters aren't attracted to them because they are religious people who think that the greens will implement church friendly policies.
I really don't know why I'm spending time defending a party that I would never vote for;)! Any green party supporters out there like to help me out?;)

wagtail99

Squidvicious wrote: »

The 2009 law did not come out of nowhere. I'm sorry, I can't link at the moment, but if you look at the wikipedia page, you will see mention of a 1999 case which said that the existing pre independence blasphemy law was not compatible with the constitution so that's why the law needed changing. You could say that it was hardly urgent but most laws that governments introduce aren't urgent but not being urgent doesn't mean it's not necessary. If a law is unconstitutional, a government is supposed to fix the law. As far as my also amateur knowledge of the law goes, the reason why the new law was made criminal was because the wording of the constitution meant that it needed to be made a criminal matter. Perhaps they should have brought it to referendum but perhaps they didn't fancy a public debate on the issue and were concerned about how the vote might go?

Whatever, it's still not a very strong base for condemning the green party as being religious. As I said, they supported the introduction of gay marriage and abortion and also the eventual removal of blasphemy from the constitution just 9 years later. Apart from Trevor Sargent being religious, have you any other examples of green policies being influenced by religion?

I take your point about their voters not being left wing, you're probably right there. I suppose people vote for them for environmental reasons and also perhaps as a protest against FF/FG. But their economic policies look very leftist to me at least. One thing I am fairly sure of is that their voters aren't attracted to them because they are religious people who think that the greens will implement church friendly policies.
I really don't know why I'm spending time defending a party that I would never vote for;)! Any green party supporters out there like to help me out?;)

Once again everything you say just points to the fact that there was no need to introduce legislation to criminalise it., already waited 10 years since the 1999 case you mention. Just have a referendum to change the constitution when a suitable slot comes up in 1 or 2 years. I think there was even one of those European referendums in late 2009.
You know that some religious totalitarian regimes (I remember Saudi was one) used Ireland's criminalisation of blasphemy as an excuse for their own restrictions on religious freedom.

At the time of the crash many people stated that they would never vote for a FF govt again, this was the moment for me never to vote Green again.
At the time It really really perplexed me how the Greens allowed this to pass. As you say they seem too leftist/liberal for you, this is how they also appeared (as a positive) to me previously. But for allowing this to go through I see now that they would probably sell their grandmothers if it would mean they could put a tax on fireplaces.

It also had me watching them more closely, so when T.Sargent retired from politics and becomes a 'man of religion', I start to wonder, and then their current leader says the historic event he would more like to have experienced is 'Jesus in Jeruselem', it's another little lightbulb.
Maybe you are younger than me, but Ireland was literally fcuked for many years by people claiming to have god on their side, and now the govt introduces a law making it a crime to criticie this dogma. Hmm...

As you say it would be nice to see some Green Party members/supplorters' angle on this.

Squidvicious

wagtail99 wrote: »

Once again everything you say just points to the fact that there was no need to introduce legislation to criminalise it., already waited 10 years since the 1999 case you mention. Just have a referendum to change the constitution when a suitable slot comes up in 1 or 2 years. I think there was even one of those European referendums in late 2009.
You know that some religious totalitarian regimes (I remember Saudi was one) used Ireland's criminalisation of blasphemy as an excuse for their own restrictions on religious freedom.

At the time of the crash many people stated that they would never vote for a FF govt again, this was the moment for me never to vote Green again.
At the time It really really perplexed me how the Greens allowed this to pass. As you say they seem too leftist/liberal for you, this is how they also appeared (as a positive) to me previously. But for allowing this to go through I see now that they would probably sell their grandmothers if it would mean they could put a tax on fireplaces.

It also had me watching them more closely, so when T.Sargent retired from politics and becomes a 'man of religion', I start to wonder, and then their current leader says the historic event he would more like to have experienced is 'Jesus in Jeruselem', it's another little lightbulb.
Maybe you are younger than me, but Ireland was literally fcuked for many years by people claiming to have god on their side, and now the govt introduces a law making it a crime to criticie this dogma. Hmm...

As you say it would be nice to see some Green Party members/supplorters' angle on this.

I don't think you and I are going to agree on this one. My view is that it's a bit much to damn an entire party on that one thing alone. Apart from anything else, they were junior coalition partners, compromises have to be made. I'm repeating myself at this point but they have clearly shown that they don't follow christian church rules by supporting gay marriage and abortion laws. If being part of a government which brought in a blasphemy law as the constitution at the time obliged them to do is the best evidence that you have that they're religious, that's pretty thin evidence.
I'm not sure how old you are and I certainly don't remember the 50's or 60's. But I see zero risk of Ireland going back there any time soon. Ireland is a totally different place today.

I also think that we need to respect people who have religious beliefs(I'm not saying that you don't). Otherwise, we're just repeating the same injustice in a different way.

hardybuck

Green Party were also in coalition with the most religious and conservative party in Ireland at the time - Fianna Fail.

friendlyfun

hardybuck wrote: »

Green Party were also in coalition with the most religious and conservative party in Ireland at the time - Fianna Fail.

As have Labour, PDs, etc. What's your point?

hardybuck

friendlyfun wrote: »

As have Labour, PDs, etc. What's your point?

The poster was banging on about how religious the green party are, and referenced blasphemy legislation that was updated when they were last in Government with Fianna Fail as evidence of this.

I was pointing out that the most religious and conservative party in Ireland, who was party in power at the time, might have been the ones pushing for the updated blasphemy legislation.

friendlyfun

hardybuck wrote: »

The poster was banging on about how religious the green party are, and referenced blasphemy legislation that was updated when they were last in Government with Fianna Fail as evidence of this

I was pointing out that being the most religious and conservative party in Ireland, who was party in power at the time, might have been the ones pushing for the blasphemy legislation.

I understand. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Dunmoreroader

Jesus Christ lads; who gives a flying fcuk about blasphemy legislation one way or another??
I'm more interested to see if O'Cathasaigh gets anything for Waterford into the programme for government, University, 24/7, North Quays, airport funding etc. etc. etc....

Aquos76

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

Jesus Christ lads; who gives a flying fcuk about blasphemy legislation one way or another??
I'm more interested to see if O'Cathasaigh gets anything for Waterford into the programme for government, University, 24/7, North Quays, airport funding etc. etc. etc....

Apparently there is no mention of 24/7, University status, the Airport or the North Quays in this program for government

invara

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

Jesus Christ lads; who gives a flying fcuk about blasphemy legislation one way or another??
I'm more interested to see if O'Cathasaigh gets anything for Waterford into the programme for government, University, 24/7, North Quays, airport funding etc. etc. etc....

The cupboard is bare. It will be interesting to hear what Mary Butler and Marc O'Cathasaigh have to say about the PfG. It is possible to identify specific big ticket items in each region (including border and midlands) and nothing of note for the SE. Two more roles of the dice are Mary Butler landing a spot at the adult table (long shot, but this Government has a serious lack of women, a junior will not cut it) or Matt Shanahan being bought off.