General Irish politics discussion thread

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120709087#Comment_120709087

Pretty much everyone is playing the green card oneway or another, but ultimately it is going to be things like broken promises on taxation that will haemorrhage what support FG have left. And their solution to the housing crisis being further bloating of the welfare system.

Hotblack Desiato

He said he was advised to delete texts on security grounds IIRC after a foreign trip?

Champagnegate he had no involvement in at all.

So what if WW wrote a story about him? Seriously, that is the level you want to operate at?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120711234#Comment_120711234

He was ‘involved’ in controversy and that damaged him.

He was bolt on next leader, now seems to have disappeared as a contender.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120711234#Comment_120711234

WW's story on him isn't of itself the issue, it's that his reputation was thought of as such widely enough that a parody newspaper would think to do so.

I say this with my own personal opinion that Coveney is about as good as it gets in FG.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120711271#Comment_120711271

Involved, how?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120712185#Comment_120712185

This is ridiculous. He was involved in controversies, fact.

People made up their own minds about them. He was politically damaged by them. If you think having to come twice into the Dàil to account for yourself doesn’t damage a reputation then think again.

Hotblack Desiato

Sure that's just waffle Francie.

Why did you say he was involved in the champagne things when he was not?

I asked you for specifics and you give me this waffle.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120712477#Comment_120712477

Dear lord.

Tell me, who is 'involved' in the controversy outlined here:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-40797585.html

https://www.thejournal.ie/simon-coveney-committee-foreign-affairs-5677235-Feb2022/

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40788066.html

https://extra.ie/2023/03/15/news/simon-coveney-deleted-text

There is all the 'specifics' of his 'involvement in those articles.

marno21

I follow Irish politics quite well and I had forgot what Champagne gate was. I'd imagine the vast majority of the general public have also. Most people don't care about minor Covid rule infringements because a) most people were breaking them themselves and b) in hindsight, it wasn't exactly the end of the world as we've come to realise.

What people want though is competent leadership. Coveney has done an excellent job as Foreign Affairs Minister and he exudes competence and someone you could trust to lead the country. He polled best as potential future leader of FG not too long ago amongst the public (McGrath polled best for FF).

I'd wager the general public would trust him better to run the country than Harris or McEntee.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120712923#Comment_120712923

I personally think he is the best they have. I could not and still cannot understand why the backroom boys and girls in FG over-ruled the membership and installed Varadkar.

Doesn't for a minute though cancel the fact that, even though they might be forgotten, those controversies he was 'involved in' (whether he was guilty or not is another issue) damaged him. He seems to have dropped off the radar or doesn't have the appetite for leadership anymore.

Sam Russell

I thought at the time that the fuss about the Foreign Affairs team celebrating our success in getting onto the UN SC on the first count as a natural reaction and not wrong in any way. They were getting ready for an all-nighter, manning the phones to lobby for votes.

However, posting a selfie on twitter was absolute stupidity. Who was it for, and why do it?

Just as the Irish women's team celebrating by singing a published song in the privacy of their dressing room after just getting to the world cup for the first time was understandable. But why publish it on twitter? It was a private matter.

Why do people feel the need to publish stupidity to the world on twitter?

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120712953#Comment_120712953

They didn't "overrule" anyone and it was the exact opposite of "backroom boys and girls" - if anything that is a far better descriptor for the membership. The democratically elected public representatives just chose their own preference for leader.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120712975#Comment_120712975

They did in effect.

The system of electing the leader may have legalised it but effectively it is a system where the membership (twice as many voted for Coveney as Varadkar) can be ignored/over-ruled/sidelined.

Which is fine if that is what FG want (it was a system proposed by Varadkar himself) Doesn't change what it is though.

You are entitled to your view of it, I have mine.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120713022#Comment_120713022

Indeed, my view is that the membership should have zero say.

It is not "effectively" that at all however - TDs and Senators are the exact opposite of backroom people and they cannot "over-rule" anyone, they merely have a higher weighting on their vote.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120713022#Comment_120713022

Just to be pedantic from what I remember at the time it was actually Coveney who implemented the new voting system where the dail members had more weighted votes.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120713042#Comment_120713042

The membership would be the prime people in any party as far as I am concerned. I'd prefer not to be patronised and have no vote than that system.

If I take part in a democratic election and there is a group in the background who can neutralise/ignore my vote, I characterise them as backroom people.

That's my view.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120713053#Comment_120713053

I understood it was proposed by Varadkar. Open to correction.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120713077#Comment_120713077

In what universe are TDs and Senators a group "in the background"?? Also, they can neither neutralise or ignore the vote. Their opinion is just weighted higher and everyone knew this beforehand.

The head of the parliamentary party should be elected by the parliamentary party, as they are the public representatives who have been duly elected to have such power so I still think the FG is wrong, but its also completely open and transparent and you clearly have no idea what "backroom" actually means in a political context.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120713101#Comment_120713101

As I said, feel free to characterise it as you wish.

To me, asking the membership to vote when they can be over-ruled/sideline/ignored smacks of a patronising elite running the party. I can see why it would be proposed.

That is FG's way of doing it, which is their choice. It's causing issues now if the media is to be believed.

You have your view Podge, I have mine. Not going to get into an argument here about it.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120713222#Comment_120713222

Not at all.

The members of the party have no democratic mandate; they just pay their sub and get a vote. They literally buy the right to vote in party elections. What's democratic about that?

TDs have been elected to their office by the people, and Senators have been elected by elected representatives of the people. They have a democratic mandate.

Podge_irl

when they can be over-ruled/sideline/ignored

They can be none of these things. This is not characterisation, it is simply a falsehood. Members have a 25% say in the leader (more than councillors I might add) and could easily tip the balance away from the vote of a smallish majority of the parliamentary party. Varadkar just got an overwhelming majority.

The brazen hypocrisy of a SF supporter using this to take a stab at FG is ridiculous. That is the only example of "backroom boys and girls" selecting party leaders in Ireland.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120712815#Comment_120712815

It's like pulling teeth, but thanks for finally providing something.

1st link - Opinion piece. Barely a mention of Coveney. Empty assertion at the end that this has damaged Coveney, no substance provided whatsoever. Nothing burger.

2nd link - coulda shoulda woulda. A nothing burger.

3rd link - Minister asked to account for the actions of his department. Nothing burger.

4th link - Deleted a text message (out of how many? hundreds?) and forgot about that one specific message. Nothing burger.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120713273#Comment_120713273

The facility to over-rule/sideline/ignore is there. Fact. And it was used.

I am not a member of any party and would have issue with SF's on their system of leadership election too.

As the usual attempt to divert is in, I'll leave you to it. You have your view I have mine.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120713222#Comment_120713222

Wow, just wow.

At least we know how the leader of that party is chosen - how one can be nominated - and who gets a vote.

Unlike a certain party I could mention!

Meanwhile if you want an example of someone who was popular with membership of a party but was (a) totally useless (b) wisely, NOT the choice of the parliamentary party, just look at Liz Truss. UK will be paying the price for her lettuce-leadership for years to come.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120713322#Comment_120713322

Do you understand simple English?

He was 'involved in' those controversies.

His guilt or lack of it, is another matter.

Hotblack Desiato

The media and SFers were desperately trying to implicate him in an event in which he had zero involvement.

It was truly pathetic stuff.

To stand over that nonsense was bad enough at the time but in hindsight just looks even more pathetic.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120713342#Comment_120713342

Why not just look at how Leo has performed for the party? When he assumed leadership I said he would lead the party back to GE levels of popularity. He has achieved that.

Was he a good choice?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120713362#Comment_120713362

Jesus.

I am standing over nothing. I made no pronouncement on his guilt or otherwise here.

To try to claim his name was not 'involved in those controversies' is next level head in sand stuff.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120713258#Comment_120713258

A good point, in fact an electoral system where people pay to have a vote, is a bit like local elections in Northern Ireland before 1969.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120713339#Comment_120713339

It is not an attempt to divert, its an attempt to point out why you're completely wrong.

A) Candidate A wins 55% of the parliamentary vote, but only 25% of the membership vote vs. Candidate B winning 45% of the parliamentary vote but 75% of the membership vote.

Candidate B wins despite the parliamentary party voting for them. Ergo, the membership can not be "over-ruled".

B) There is nothing backroom or background about public representatives. They are the only element of the leadership election process you can actually say this about. They are known to everyone and their contact details are known to everyone and they can be lobbied by the public in regards to their vote.

You want to complain about the process fine, as I said I don't like it myself. I would have thought a cursory glance at UK politics would amply demonstrate why giving members the ultimate say in the PP leader is such a catastrophically bad idea but that is a different argument.

Claiming "backroom boys overruled the membership" is a simple falsehood.