nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

So Michael D IS running again!

realdanbreen

So when Michael D was campaigning for president and said it would be a one off term he was lying?
Many voted for him because he was only going for one term and wasn't trying to hog the job for 14 years.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Pa8301

jmcc wrote: »

You are entitled to think that and vote accordingly. That's democracy. There is either a democracy or there is not. That's the bigger question.

Read the post above to understand why this is not a simple "reelect Higgins" election but rather a more complex one in which a proxy General Election is being fought.

Regards...jmcc

I think you're overthinking it and putting more weight on it than there is.

jmcc

Pa8301 wrote: »

I think you're overestimating this whole "anger of the people over the attempted coronation" issue. I don't think that many people are really that bothered about it. I can only see a pretty comfortable Higgins victory. I could be wrong of course.

The big player in this is SF. Look at how it used Mary Lou McDonald's face on some of the SF 8th posters. Look at how strong it is in the younger demographics. SF took the opportunity provided by FF/FG's "My Little Crony" strategy to build a campaign and be perceived as the protector of democracy. This election will effectively establish it as the "official" opposition to the FF/FG government. The whole "My Little Crony" strategy has gone very badly wrong for FF/FG and, unless Gallagher becomes the proxy FF/FG candidate, they could be facing the possibility of an SF president.

Regards...jmcc

jm08

jmcc, it doesn't get away from the fact that Gallagher was collecting cheques for £5K in envelopes for Fianna Fail. There were also mention of amounts of £89K 'resting' in his bank account by mistake. And RTE / licence payer had to pay for finding out the truth in the courts. Gallagher sued the Irish licence payer.

I listened to an interview on RTE last week with a Roscommon County Councillor who was proposing Gallagher to be President. The reason he gave was that he was from a neighbouring county and bearing in mind that he would be all trade delegations to other countries, he could put a good word in for Roscommon!

From what I can see, there are an awful lot of his supporters in complete denial about what actually happened.

Loafing Oaf

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He was the FF candidate with the numbers filed off, so all the FF voters and all the people who used to vote FF until the wheels came off were going to vote for him.

Do you think this was a conscious thing based on signals received from the party leadership, or was it more of an instinctive identification with SG as "our type of guy" irrespective of his actual connections with the party.

Zubeneschamali

Pa8301 wrote: »

I don't think that many people are really that bothered about it. I can only see a pretty comfortable Higgins victory.

Higgins: 60%
SF candidate: 25%

Everyone else: scraps.

jmcc

jm08 wrote: »

jmcc, it doesn't get away from the fact that Gallagher was collecting cheques for £5K in envelopes for Fianna Fail.

Apparently he did not. I think that was covered in the legal action. This does show the power of that word "envelope" and how it destroyed his campaign.

There were also mention of amounts of £89K 'resting' in his bank account by mistake.

This was explained as a bookkeeping error and one that many businesses with multiple accounts would be familiar with. To the average PAYE viewer, it may seem like a big thing but that kind of error does happen. I think it was a payment for one of his businesses that was lodged to the account of another of his businesses by mistake. It was apparently resolved.

And RTE / licence payer had to pay for finding out the truth in the courts. Gallagher sued the Irish licence payer.

It would seem that RTE conducted its own investigations and the BAI ruled against RTE. The legal action was against RTE.

I listened to an interview on RTE last week with a Roscommon County Councillor who was proposing Gallagher to be President. The reason he gave was that he was from a neighbouring county and bearing in mind that he would be all trade delegations to other countries, he could put a good word in for Roscommon!

That's politics.

From what I can see, there are an awful lot of his supporters in complete denial about what actually happened.

Don't ever underestimate the power of a "stabbed in the back" narrative. Wars have been fought over it. Gallagher, if he gets into the race will probably try to be positive about it but it is going to get covered.

Regards...jmcc

Zubeneschamali

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Do you think this was a conscious thing based on signals received from the party leadership, or was it more of an instinctive identification with SG as "our type of guy" irrespective of his actual connections with the party.

As far as anyone can tell, he was still a member of FF when he got the nomination. He only resigned from the Ard Chomhairle in January 2011, in February he was seen on the platform with 4 FF GE candidates, and he was first reported as seeking to be a Presidential candidate in May.

I think it is clear that this was all a stroke: he was FF right through but thought he'd a better chance if he kept it quiet. Some voters (especially in the NE) would have known he was a FF head, others found out when he threw out signals by refusing to condemn FF, and then claiming the party had "moved away from its grassroots" and saying we was from the FF gene pool.

James Brown

jmcc wrote: »

I consider OscarBravo to be quite unfamiliar with politics and the media (specifically spin and PR). The pledge to do one term only was used by the Higgins campaign to neutralise any questions about Higgins' age and health.

There had been considerable discussion up to that point about Higgins' age and his hobbling about due to a knee injury and the serious tremor in his hand were raising questions. RTE had tried to limit this coverage by using static shots of Higgins sitting and standing. Higgins had also started to fold his hands on TV interviews and was using fewer hand gestures.

The pledge was a hostage to fortune. Back then, the future for Labour and FG was quite rosy and FF had, or so they thought, been destroyed as a major party. Had the situation remained unchanged, then Higgins' relection would have been a foregone conclusion. But things did change and now Labour needs Higgins to win if it is still to be considered a national party. The pledge to do only one term was a cynical political move to gain votes that has now backfired.

Regards...jmcc

Or maybe he only wanted to do one term, thinking of the commitment and now coming to an end thinks he'd like to go again? Let's remember it's the President, not the Taoiseach. It's cutting ribbons and meeting people as an ambassador. I would suggest Higgins will get in on his own merits, despite any affiliation with Labour and in kind, Labour won't benefit in any way. Higgins gets by on his own reputation despite Labours.

Hurrache

jmcc wrote: »

That's politics.

But changing your mind is not

James Brown

jmcc wrote: »

You are entitled to think that and vote accordingly. That's democracy. There is either a democracy or there is not. That's the bigger question.

Read the post above to understand why this is not a simple "reelect Higgins" election but rather a more complex one in which a proxy General Election is being fought.

Regards...jmcc

I disagree. If anything there's a limp attempt to make that out of it. It will only gather steam if the likes of Gallagher and anyone else unfit for the office make a success out of cheapening the process. Personally I don't want a self aggrandising chancer as President representing the country.

jmcc

Hurrache wrote: »

But changing your mind is not

You believe politicians?

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Or maybe he only wanted to do one term, thinking of the commitment and now coming to an end thinks he'd like to go again?

No. The pledge to do only on term was a cynical move to neutralise any questioning of Higgins' age and health in the 2011 election.

I would suggest Higgins will get in on his own merits, despite any affiliation with Labour and in kind, Labour won't benefit in any way. Higgins gets by on his own reputation despite Labours.

Higgins is inextricably linked to Labour. He may have resigned but his whole career, apart from his short time in Fianna Fail, has been Labour and he had, during that time, been one of the most visible Labourites in the media.

Regards...jmcc

VinLieger

jmcc wrote: »

You believe politicians?

Regards...jmcc

So all politicians lie? Why are you so focused on higgins in that case? Might you have some kind of agenda or bias....?

jmcc

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I disagree. If anything there's a limp attempt to make that out of it.

Political parties play for keeps. This isn't a game to them. The prize here is the position of the second largest political party in the country. At the moment the Irish political model is one of three large parties and a lot of smaller ones. The spread between the largest and smallest of the three large parties is 27 seats. At the moment, the difference between FF and FG is 6 seats. The presidential election will provide some parties with free media coverage and this is why FF/FG's "My Little Crony" strategy was such a complete disaster. The only party going to be getting direct publicity for having a declared candidate in this presidential election is SF. That publicity may translate into votes and already FF and FG are talking about an upcoming election. Some coverage indicated that there are some in FG who want a GE before Christmas. If that happens, then the events of the presidential election and the high profile of SF could translate in to votes for Dail seats. An SF president, no matter how unlikely it seems now, could force an FF/FG coalition after the next GE. Even if the SF candidate does not win, the media coverage is going to be highly useful for SF.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

VinLieger wrote: »

So all politicians lie? Why are you so focused on higgins in that case? Might you have some kind of agenda or bias....?

It would have been the same had any other candidate won by RTE's electoral interference. The important thing is democracy. If RTE could nobble the front runner in the 2011 presidential election, would it be fair if they did it to another candidate this time around? Where does that leave democracy?

Regards...jmcc

VinLieger

jmcc wrote: »

It would have been the same had any other candidate won by RTE's electoral interference. The important thing is democracy. If RTE could nobble the front runner in the 2011 presidential election, would it be fair if they did it to another candidate this time around? Where does that leave democracy?

Regards...jmcc

So zero solutions, just a lot of problems and pointless hypotheticals to sow doubt in favour of your own point of view. Ironic how much you complain about politicians yet sound so much like one

jmcc

VinLieger wrote: »

So zero solutions, just a lot of problems and pointless hypotheticals to sow doubt in favour of your own point of view. Ironic how much you complain about politicians yet sound so much like one

I believe that the holders of political office should be chosen by the votes of the people rather than by the media. This is not a thread for proposing solutions.

The "hypotheticals" dealing with the 2011 election are not hypotheticals. They are facts. This is not 2011 and there has been almost 39% of an electoral generation (people who became eligible to vote) since then so a major part of the electorate in this election will be first time voters. FF is no longer the toxic pariah it was in 2011 and is now the second largest party in terms of TDs. The floating vote that gave Labour all those seats in 2011 has shifted to FF and SF. SF has moved in on Labour's sole remaining area of SJW/virtue signalling and is becoming the main left of centre party.

But you can continue to believe the same clowns in the media who never saw Trump coming and had an epic hissy fit after "their" candidate HRC lost. That way you'll always be surprised by what happens in politics and elections.

Regards...jmcc

James Brown

jmcc wrote: »

No. The pledge to do only on term was a cynical move to neutralise any questioning of Higgins' age and health in the 2011 election.

Higgins is inextricably linked to Labour. He may have resigned but his whole career, apart from his short time in Fianna Fail, has been Labour and he had, during that time, been one of the most visible Labourites in the media.

Regards...jmcc

But I don't think anyone cares he'll be elected based on himself and any attempt to make this some kind of pro Labour PR coup is a nonsense to try garner interest in a race comprised of no marks and also rans IMO.

jmcc

Matt Barrett wrote: »

But I don't think anyone cares he'll be elected based on himself and any attempt to make this some kind of pro Labour PR coup is a nonsense to try garner interest in a race comprised of no marks and also rans IMO.

Labour needs Higgins to win if it is to be taken seriously as a national party rather than a party with TDs solely elected on the basis of their personal vote rather than an ideological vote. (Think hard core FF or FG voters who vote for their candidates no matter who they are.) Higgins is completely dependent on votes from voters who would traditionally vote for the large parties.

Regards...jmcc

James Brown

jmcc wrote: »

Political parties play for keeps. This isn't a game to them. The prize here is the position of the second largest political party in the country. At the moment the Irish political model is one of three large parties and a lot of smaller ones. The spread between the largest and smallest of the three large parties is 27 seats. At the moment, the difference between FF and FG is 6 seats. The presidential election will provide some parties with free media coverage and this is why FF/FG's "My Little Crony" strategy was such a complete disaster. The only party going to be getting direct publicity for having a declared candidate in this presidential election is SF. That publicity may translate into votes and already FF and FG are talking about an upcoming election. Some coverage indicated that there are some in FG who want a GE before Christmas. If that happens, then the events of the presidential election and the high profile of SF could translate in to votes for Dail seats. An SF president, no matter how unlikely it seems now, could force an FF/FG coalition after the next GE. Even if the SF candidate does not win, the media coverage is going to be highly useful for SF.

Regards...jmcc

Labour, FF and FG are officially backing Higgins. Strange way to win any game. The Presidential race, this one in particular has absolutely no bearing on any upcoming general election. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, Higgins' attachment to Labour and Labour currently being in the political abyss, gives strength to that. Even if it helps raise the profile of SF, it will not have any notable carry over to any election. The Presidency has not been seen as much of a political power play since DeValera's time. It's generally a swan song or pat on the back for an individual, regardless of party affiliations.

jmcc

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Labour, FF and FG are officially backing Higgins. Strange way to win any game.

Labour is an irrelevance. FF and FG wanted to have a coronation of Higgins to save money for the upcoming General Election and the European and Local Elections in May 2019. By having the two of the three largest parties back Higgins, it seemed that they hoped that SF would be sensible and do the same thing. The problem was that Craughwell brought up the issue of an election and SF, not being part of the "My Little Crony" strategy decided to nominate a candidate and catch FF/FG at a major disadvantage. FF was somewhat cleverer than FG in that it didn't apply a whip to its councillors and now it seems that the FG command and control over its councillors is not as strong as people believed. While FGers may not actively vote for candidates at council level they may abstain from the votes. FG councillors who do vote apparently won't be punished.

The Presidential race, this one in particular has absolutely no bearing on any upcoming general election.

It does. And if there is a GE before Christmas, its importance is critical because it may become part of the GE campaign.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say, Higgins' attachment to Labour and Labour currently being in the political abyss, gives strength to that.

There's wonderful bit of propaganda from PBP about how 6 out of 7 Labour TDs are millionaires. An attachment to Labour, a party on 3% in the opinion polls is not a such a great thing.

FF is doing its own bit to spike Higgins. Remember that story about Higgins and the 3K a night hotel suite?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/pac-chairman-there-is-no-reason-not-to-examine-taxpayer-funding-to-aras-864763.html

Regards...jmcc

jm08

jmcc wrote: »

Apparently he did not. I think that was covered in the legal action. This does show the power of that word "envelope" and how it destroyed his campaign.

Apparently he did. And requested 'donations' from other people, some he knew and some he didn't. He advised people that the limit was £5K, otherwise it would have to be declared by Fianna Fail.

Looking at the court reports, it wasn't covered in the legal action. What was covered was RTE not verifying the tweet and secondly that Pat Kenny put harder questions to Gallagher than he did to other participants.

Gallagher wasn't able to answer them. If he had been innocent of the cheque incident, he would have denied it immediately.

Up to that, Gallagher had gotten off fairly easily - Mary Davis, David Norris, Dana and Martin McG. all had to deal with some pretty hard questions. Michael D. has been in the public eye for so long, he was pretty much an open book.

This was explained as a bookkeeping error and one that many businesses with multiple accounts would be familiar with. To the average PAYE viewer, it may seem like a big thing but that kind of error does happen. I think it was a payment for one of his businesses that was lodged to the account of another of his businesses by mistake. It was apparently resolved.

Yes, that old book keeping error. Yet complained that he didn't have a staff to deal with the queries and needed the books back from his accountants. Browsing around the comment sections at the time, a lot of people were mentioning that he used to charge GAA clubs £5k to help with a grant application and that he claimed to have created 100s jobs, though most of them were now gone.

That's politics.

No, thats Healy-Rae parochalism. We have the IDA etc. to bring jobs to Roscommon, not the President of Ireland who is meant to be above politics.

James Brown

jmcc wrote: »

It would have been the same had any other candidate won by RTE's electoral interference. The important thing is democracy. If RTE could nobble the front runner in the 2011 presidential election, would it be fair if they did it to another candidate this time around? Where does that leave democracy?

Regards...jmcc

That is difficult to show. You can have it as an opinion alright. I think Gallagher hyped it up but his plan to monetise the Aras was a bit much. I think he was still drunk with Celtic Tiger/Dragons Den nonsense.

jmcc

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That is difficult to show. You can have it as an opinion alright. I think Gallagher hyped it up but his plan to monetise the Aras was a bit much. I think he was still drunk with Celtic Tiger/Dragons Den nonsense.

The implication was that I was biased against Higgins whereas I consider how he obtained the presidency to be the issue and that if RTE got away with nobbling one candidate, they would very likely do it to other candidates.

Regards...jmcc

jm08

jmcc wrote: »

Labour needs Higgins to win if it is to be taken seriously as a national party rather than a party with TDs solely elected on the basis of their personal vote rather than an ideological vote. (Think hard core FF or FG voters who vote for their candidates no matter who they are.) Higgins is completely dependent on votes from voters who would traditionally vote for the large parties.

Regards...jmcc

I'd say Ireland needs Higgins (or some neutral person) as President, bearing in mind the historic events of War of Independence and the Civil War will be commemorated. I'd prefer if the president had no affiliation to the main actors in the Civil War FF, FG or SF.

jmcc

jm08 wrote: »

I'd say Ireland needs Higgins (or some neutral person) as President, bearing in mind the historic events of War of Independence and the Civil War will be commemorated. I'd prefer if the president had no affiliation to the main actors in the Civil War FF, FG or SF.

Higgins has. His father fought in the WoI and Civil War, I think. Of course, there's a possibility that an FF or FG president would be problematic for one or the other of those parties hence the "My Little Crony" strategy for a compromise candidate.

Regards...jmcc

James Brown

jm08 wrote: »

I'd say Ireland needs Higgins (or some neutral person) as President, bearing in mind the historic events of War of Independence and the Civil War will be commemorated. I'd prefer if the president had no affiliation to the main actors in the Civil War FF, FG or SF.

Agreed. The 1916 centenary celebrations were a sham.

James Brown

jmcc wrote: »

Higgins has. His father fought in the WoI and Civil War, I think. Of course, there's a possibility that an FF or FG president would be problematic for one or the other of those parties hence the "My Little Crony" strategy for a compromise candidate.

Regards...jmcc

I think you'll find many people had a side in the civil war. The idea is not to have a party still living off the rosey recollections of which side their party is associated with.

What's your point on repeating the 'my little crony'? Now you're suggesting the main parties intend winning the political game by not playing?

EDIT:
Actually I'll bow out here. It's getting ridiculous. It's a presidential election some seem to be trying make a bigger deal out of in the hopes to build some hype around a one horse race.

jmcc

jm08 wrote: »

Apparently he did. And requested 'donations' from other people, some he knew and some he didn't. He advised people that the limit was £5K, otherwise it would have to be declared by Fianna Fail.

But did he collect the cheques or just issue invitations?

Looking at the court reports, it wasn't covered in the legal action. What was covered was RTE not verifying the tweet and secondly that Pat Kenny put harder questions to Gallagher than he did to other participants.

BAI upheld his complaints. Gallagher and the other candidates received the most questions. Higgins received almost none. As he was the second in the opinion polls, that was rather odd.

Gallagher wasn't able to answer them. If he had been innocent of the cheque incident, he would have denied it immediately.

He did say that he had no recollection of collecting a cheque but it was the mention of the word "envelope" that killed his campaign.

Up to that, Gallagher had gotten off fairly easily - Mary Davis, David Norris, Dana and Martin McG. all had to deal with some pretty hard questions. Michael D. has been in the public eye for so long, he was pretty much an open book.

Higgins was largely ignored when it came to any questions by RTE.

Yes, that old book keeping error. Yet complained that he didn't have a staff to deal with the queries and needed the books back from his accountants.

They happen.

Browsing around the comment sections at the time, a lot of people were mentioning that he used to charge GAA clubs £5k to help with a grant application and that he claimed to have created 100s jobs, though most of them were now gone.

Well if he was in business as a consultant helping on drafting grants proposals, that was his business. As for the jobs, he may have created jobs but, as you may be aware, there was a bit of a recession at the time where thousands of people in the Construction and associated industries lost their jobs following the bursting of the property bubble.

No, thats Healy-Rae parochalism. We have the IDA etc. to bring jobs to Roscommon, not the President of Ireland who is meant to be above politics.

It is politics. You mightn't like it but it is the kind of clientism upon which Irish politics operates.

Regards...jmcc

gandalf

jmcc wrote: »

I consider OscarBravo to be quite unfamiliar with politics and the media (specifically spin and PR). The pledge to do one term only was used by the Higgins campaign to neutralise any questions about Higgins' age and health.

There had been considerable discussion up to that point about Higgins' age and his hobbling about due to a knee injury and the serious tremor in his hand were raising questions. RTE had tried to limit this coverage by using static shots of Higgins sitting and standing. Higgins had also started to fold his hands on TV interviews and was using fewer hand gestures.

The pledge was a hostage to fortune. Back then, the future for Labour and FG was quite rosy and FF had, or so they thought, been destroyed as a major party. Had the situation remained unchanged, then Higgins' relection would have been a foregone conclusion. But things did change and now Labour needs Higgins to win if it is still to be considered a national party. The pledge to do only one term was a cynical political move to gain votes that has now backfired.

Regards...jmcc

Well knowing Oscar personally as I do you are very wrong there. He has probably forgotten more about politics than some around here claim they know.

As for Michael D we'll see if he has suffered any electoral damage, I doubt it. Unless someone qualified comes totally from left field he has vote from me that he didn't have last time.