Why didn't D Higgins ever contest the leadership of labour?

Never Say Never Again wrote: »

That way he would have had a chance to become Taoiseach and be able to do the things he belives in.

Too busy picking up fat salaries as a minister and now president . He was only doing the one term as president he told us as well . Now he wants to run for another 7 years bringing him up to his mid 80 s . Nothing to do with money of course . Just loved the job

I would be happy to see him run again. I think he represents us very well.

davyboy1975 wrote: »

Running is a bit of a stretch as if he decides to stand again then he would be unopposed under the terms of office

That's not true. As a sitting President he can nominate himself without having to go through the usual nomination procedure (20 TD & Senators; or 4 local councils) but there is nothing in the Constitution that says an incumbent President is immune to challengers. It has actually only happened once, in 1966 when FGs Tom O'Higgins challenged incumbent President de Valera, and probably isn't seen as the "done thing" in so-called polite society, but if Higgins decides to run again then anybody who can get the nominations is free to stand and force an election.

Sidey wrote: »

That's not true. As a sitting President he can nominate himself without having to go through the usual nomination procedure (20 TD & Senators; or 4 local councils) but there is nothing in the Constitution that says an incumbent President is immune to challengers. It has actually only happened once, in 1966 when FGs Tom O'Higgins challenged incumbent President de Valera, and probably isn't seen as the "done thing" in so-called polite society, but if Higgins decides to run again then anybody who can get the nominations is free to stand and force an election.

Interestingly, there have been echoes of this, as I have heard the suggestion that President Higgins might not campaign even if there is a contest. De Valera took that approach in the election against O'Higgins and it backfired, with Dev winning by a very narrow margin, only about 1% of the vote.

Regarding the question in the title of the thread, Frank Cluskey once joked when Michael D. was absent from a party meeting that "given the choice between saving the world and saving the Labour Party, Michael D. always takes the easy option". I think that explains why he chose the presidency over the Labour Party!

expectationlost wrote: »

erm didn't he run for like chair of labour and various positions like that to try and influence the party..., he was too to the left to win the leadership and opposed going into coalition

MD Higgins would have comfortably won the leadership of the LP in the mid-1980s if the leader was elected by a vote of the membership (as it is now). By 1985 he was significantly more popular among the party membership than Dick Spring - and at the time was still opposed to coalition with FG (which is the reason the PLP wouldn't support him).

Sam Russell wrote: »

Actually, I believe he has 'gifted' his other pensions to the state while he is President. Anyway, someone has to be president, and if it is him, then he will not get a Presidential pension so saving the state a few bob. I doubt that he is after the money in any way.

I think he has been brilliant so far, turning up duly scrubbed and on time for the opening of an envelope. He has also highlighted many things that could have been ignored by the politicos, and they may well wished he had not got involved.

I hope he stays on for this reason as well. If he decides not to seek re-election, we will have to fork out a pension to him, a salary and a pension to who ever is elected long term it save money if he stays. He is adequate for the job and can walk the walk and talk the talk so it is win win.