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

FrancieBrady

Michael D - a little on the back foot. No huge damage done.
Gallagher - sounding like the President he so wants to be. But won't win new votes.
Freeman - pathetic and away out of her depth.
O'Riada - needs to be more direct maybe.
Duffy - non entity really.
Casey - terrible.

Much better debate than I thought.

alaimacerc

Hurrache wrote: »

I don't know what to take from that 'debate'. Duffy sounds like he's given up based on the polls, Freeman doesn't know anything about the presidency and tries to direct back to Pieta house every time, Na Riadh made no impression whatsoever, Casey is just a prick but we know that already, and Gallagher trying to be presidential by standing up for other candidates when it suits him, but won't answer any questions. Higgins was as I expected, just Higgins.

For the sake of completeness, Casey is mostly just being a prick, and 25% of the time banging on about his own Single Transferable Topic, the diaspora.

Edit, and now Duffy being a dick at the end.

Yes indeed. Answer is, Higgins has a day job -- being president, drops mic -- Gallagher having notions of himself not going to show up with the also-rans if MDH isn't going to be there.

Skid X

Itssoeasy wrote: »

He's not helping his 1%.

With the margin of error he might be on -2% , which I think would be a more accurate reflection of his support.

Every time Peter Casey opens his mouth he confirms how unsuited he is to the highest role in the state.

A nasty attack on the age of the incumbent President. Casey has no class.

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Much better debate than I thought.

Do you really think so? I thought it was pretty poor, first 20 minutes were juvenile insinuations about expenditure within the Aras, something that is an Oireachtas issue.

alaimacerc

Skid X wrote: »

With the margin of error he might be on -2% , which I think would be a more accurate reflection of his support.

Misuse of maths, well played on the witticism, all the same.

SimonTemplar

Liadh Ní Riada is the most qualified and credible of the new candidates, but if it is a choice between one of those people or more of the same, I'd prefer more of the same.

It would be much different if it was a US President election or a general election where the substance of the debate would be much different and challenging the incumbant's track record of dealing with the day to day issues of the country would be much more applicable.

alaimacerc

Hurrache wrote: »

Do you really think so? I thought it was pretty poor, first 20 minutes were juvenile insinuations about expenditure within the Aras, something that is an Oireachtas issue.

Yes, that passage was very long and very niggly. Sorta a Dutch auction for who could do the presidency-on-the-cheapest. Though interesting sub-plot in which Ni Riada bids her salary up from 37k to 39k, to 47, to 60, to 90-ish, and finally to about 120k (if I followed all that, between the gigs and the reels).

But the Five Dwarves were clearly all very keen to have a go at the incumbent Hobbit on the issue, so the presenter likely felt it had to be let run. Otherwise we'd be hearing the usual "OMG RTE hard-left bias!" guff about the presenting.

FrancieBrady

Hurrache wrote: »

Do you really think so? I thought it was pretty poor, first 20 minutes were juvenile insinuations about expenditure within the Aras, something that is an Oireachtas issue.

Yeh, as a first debate I thought it was ok. Nothing got bogged down and the issues succeeded in rattling a few cages.
I was expecting it to be uninteresting guff to be totally honest.

TCM

Just listened to the debate. Might I say the Higgins is light years ahead of the others. He started slowly but got into his stride soon enough. For so called entrepreneurs those three lads are total clowns - rattling on with puke inducing nonsense. The two women were reasonable enough I thought. In summary nobody landed a glove on Higgins. Unless he drops dead the result of the presidential election is a foregone conclusion.

touts

Micky D - sounded like he thought the job was his and this whole process was a waste of time and he's probably right.
Sean G- in a level pitch he would probably be a front runner and would give Micky D a good run for his money but with the polls the way they are I'd say he's looking ahead in case Micky D shuffles off this mortal coil in a year or two.
Joan F - there to plug her charity.
Leana Ni R - waste of space. Forgot she was one of my MEPs before this and this is all about the next European election for her.
Gavin D - seems to have given up already but can't get out now.
Peter C - he'll regret this whole thing when he looks back on what an ass he has made of himself.

It's Micky D for another few years and then Gallagher to be third time lucky when he beats Enda Kenny in the next election sometime between now and 2025.

Quin_Dub

thecretinhop wrote: »

drop dead

##Mod Note##

thecretinhop will be taking a bit of a break from the forum

Thanks

alaimacerc

touts wrote: »

There are two clear camps developing. The three capitalist dragons are ganging up on Micky D. The three leftists are ganging up on Gallagher.

How on earth do you make a Labour politician, a SF politician, a social conservative charitarian, and three celeb crony capitalists add up to "three leftists"?

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was expecting it to be uninteresting guff to be totally honest.

Expectation management is a key step in mental equanimity in many applications.

alaimacerc

Itssoeasy wrote: »

And it is an act.

Mind you, I think the "losing patience" might be, too. There's likely an "indignation" module in the SF elected rep orientation course.

alaimacerc

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Why is Sean being allowed to direct the debate topics so much? This really should be moderated better.

Ó hEadhra's go-to presenting moves are:

Talk over the panelist; and,
Have multiple panelists all talk over each other.

It tends to hover some place between "lively" and "head-wrecking", depending on how it pans out on the day.

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

Expectation management is a key step in mental equanimity in many applications.

I like surprises so I don't bother with that much.

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ó hEadhra's go-to presenting moves are:

Talk over the panelist; and,
Have multiple panelists all talk over each other.

It tends to hover some place between "lively" and "head-wrecking", depending on how it pans out on the day.

Panned out well today. Managed to out a few candidates at certain points. Freeman and Casey being notable examples and if you were wondering about Gallagher's sincerity I think today's performance would have made your mind up.

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I like surprises so I don't bother with that much.

You seem to have managed it unwittingly on this occasion, then. Expected dire, were pleasantly surprised at... slightly less dire!

Kermit.de.frog

Hate to bring it up but isn't there a reasonable chance here, given his age, that Michael D will pass on to the great communist republic in the sky while in office?

Reckon we need someone younger tbh.

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

You seem to have managed it unwittingly on this occasion, then. Expected dire, were pleasantly surprised at... slightly less dire!

Unwittingly? I remain open to possibilities my friend.

One man's 'unwitting' is another's glorious serendipity.

Rhineshark

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Hate to bring it up but isn't there a reasonable chance here, given his age, that Michael D will pass on to the great communist republic in the sky while in office?

Reckon we need someone younger tbh.

Obviously you don't hate to bring it up *too* much! :P

Sure, there is a chance he might die in office. There is also a chance that Sean Gallagher might be diagnosed with terminal gloutocephalia. Higgins is probably as healthy as he was last time around with plus seven years but his hip sorted. Shrug. He seems pretty spry.

alaimacerc

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Hate to bring it up but isn't there a reasonable chance here, given his age, that Michael D will pass on to the great communist republic in the sky while in office?

Reckon we need someone younger tbh.

A reasonable cahnce, sure. OTH, there's reasonable chance he won't, and even if he does it might be nearer the end of the term than the start, in which case I doubt there would be significant "buyer's remorse".

Of course, if you want to cheese-pare the cost angle... having brought about an election that there seems to be very little public demand for, you could argue that every year MDH doesn't see out of his term costs us a few million, in terms of amortised cost of getting the one after.

Still, small price to pay to avoid the rest of these no-hopers.

touts

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Hate to bring it up but isn't there a reasonable chance here, given his age, that Michael D will pass on to the great communist republic in the sky while in office?

Reckon we need someone younger tbh.

Given that the average life expectancy for an Irish man is 77 and he is over that already odds are he will die or become incapacitated in the next 7 years in office. But people seem to realise that and according to the polls they are still supporting him. The question is who will succeed him. If it's in the next two or three then there is a real risk that the government will say it's too soon to hold an election and will just nominate a successor from their own ranks. It is very possible that we will vote Michael D Higgins and get Enda Kenny. If he lasts 5 years or more I'd say they will go for an election.

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unwittingly? I remain open to possibilities my friend.

One man's 'unwitting' is another's glorious serendipity.

I was merely suggesting your wits might have been deployed elsewhere, on other vital tasks, no doubt, not that they're absent entirely.

FrancieBrady

touts wrote: »

Given that the average life expectancy for an Irish man is 77 and he is over that already odds are he will die or become incapacitated in the next 7 years in office. But people seem to realise that and according to the polls they are still supporting him. The question is who will succeed him. If it's in the next two or three then there is a real risk that the government will say it's too soon to hold an election and will just nominate a successor from their own ranks. It is very possible that we will vote Michael D Higgins and get Enda Kenny. If he lasts 5 years or more I'd say they will go for an election.

The current FG party doing something that might cost them in a PR sense? Not a chance.
Varadkar would not be brave enough to try that one on current form.

alaimacerc

touts wrote: »

Given that the average life expectancy for an Irish man is 77 and he is over that already odds are he will die or become incapacitated in the next 7 years in office.

That's not how life expectancy works. You don't have an expected life span of 1 at 76, and -1 at 78!

http://www.irishhealth.com/calc/life_expect02.html?f_gender=m&f_age=75&f_smoke=0&submit=Calculate

If it's in the next two or three then there is a real risk that the government will say it's too soon to hold an election and will just nominate a successor from their own ranks.

Unless I'm missing a constitutional wrinkle here -- it happens, as "Simple" Simon Coveney knows to his cost -- but surely that's not in the government's gift. Even if all three main parties agree on a joint nomination, the indies and the councils are entirely free to nominate someone else, in which case, election happens.

Adamcp898

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ó hEadhra's go-to presenting moves are:

Talk over the panelist; and,
Have multiple panelists all talk over each other.

It tends to hover some place between "lively" and "head-wrecking", depending on how it pans out on the day.

In the first 20/30 minutes there were a couple of occasions where he was just about stopping himself from saying "Good idea, Sean" anytime Gallagher would suggest that the topic should be moved on.

Gallagher laid it on a bit thick I thought but will have come across as very affable to others I'm sure. Wondering will any of the other "characters" have the balls to take a swipe at him over his activities that lost him the last presidential race, in the guise of questioning what he's been doing for the 7 years since, as the debates progress. Difficult to see any of them being willing to stir the nest with no McGuiness like figure in there.

Given that the greatest virtue of the other candidates anyone seems to be able to come up with is that "sure at least they're younger", it really doesn't bode well for the office when 2025 rolls around. Perhaps time to have it vacated before it becomes a mockery.

alaimacerc

Adamcp898 wrote: »

In the first 20/30 minutes there were a couple of occasions where he was just about stopping himself from saying "Good idea, Sean" anytime Gallagher would suggest that the topic should be moved on.

Yeah. Imagine the producer, just off-webcam, mind you!

Gallagher laid it on a bit thick I thought but will have come across as very affable to others I'm sure. Wondering will any of the other "characters" have the balls to take a swipe at him over his activities that lost him the last presidential race, in the guise of questioning what he's been doing for the 7 years since, as the debates progress. Difficult to see any of them being willing to stir the nest with no McGuiness like figure in there.

Unless it starts to become competitive, or competitive for second place, or to be "top dwagon", or for getting their expenses, I'm not sure what benefit there would be to attack Gallagher.

Given that the greatest virtue of the other candidates anyone seems to be able to come up with is that "sure at least they're younger", it really doesn't bode well for the office when 2025 rolls around. Perhaps time to have it vacated before it becomes a mockery.

The field was artificially impoverished by FG and FF not running anyone this time. No harm there, sez I, but even a mediocre Civil Wars candidate would have been in the upper quartile of this shower. That won't happen again in 2025. As to dwagonmania, who knows.

Lots of people seem to think it's some sort of post-imperial anomaly that there's a presidency, but I think that's exactly wrong. How many republics that use a parliamentary system don't have one? Granted not always directly elected, but if there were a referendum on changing that, there would be howls of "establishment stitch-up to appoint their cronies!", and it'd go down in flames. We couldn't even abolish the Seanad, so I doubt getting rid of the presidency is going to fly, either.

Adamcp898

alaimacerc wrote: »

Unless it starts to become competitive, or competitive for second place, or to be "top dwagon", or for getting their expenses, I'm not sure what benefit there would be to attack Gallagher.

That is what I mean about the lack of a "McGuinness" character, everyone else has their career to think about it after the inevitable happens and there's no one self assured enough to sling it without the fear of it bouncing back at them.

alaimacerc wrote: »

The field was artificially impoverished by FG and FF not running anyone this time. No harm there, sez I, but even a mediocre Civil Wars candidate would have been in the upper quartile of this shower. That won't happen again in 2025. As to dwagonmania, who knows.

Lots of people seem to think it's some sort of post-imperial anomaly that there's a presidency, but I think that's exactly wrong. How many republics that use a parliamentary system don't have one? Granted not always directly elected, but if there were a referendum on changing that, there would be howls of "establishment stitch-up to appoint their cronies!", and it'd go down in flames. We couldn't even abolish the Seanad, so I doubt getting rid of the presidency is going to fly, either.

Personally I don't see it as an anomaly that it exists, I just don't see a defined role for it anymore i.e. a person is voted into the office now without the electorate having the slightest idea what they should expect this person to achieve for them.

In my view, the president can currently at best be an effective foreign ambassador and provide an "independent" voice on national civic and social issues, while performing their constitutional obligations. But how many of the candidates that run can we ever be sure of even doing that in a collected and thoughtful manner?

I agree that there's little chance of us ever abolishing it entirely but perhaps there's a mechanism that could be found which simply vacates the position? I don't know.

All I know is that as it ambles on in existence without a more defined responsibility outside of deciding what they'd like their own legacy to be, it's only going to become increasingly purposeless. That in turn will attract a lower and lower standard of candidate until it does become a mockery.

Beechwoodspark

Thought Casey was over the top with the remarks about MDH age earlier. He said something like “we will be lucky to get him to do a walk around the park in 7 years time”. That was just uncalled for.

MDH of course will get public sympathy for remarks like that. It’ll probably make him even more popular.