So Michael D IS running again!

gmisk · 16-10-2018 12:58pm

Hurrache wrote: »

I want to bring up something that got lost in the mire since the debate.

Casey claimed last night he was part of the Good Friday delegation. Does anyone know if this is true, or is he clutching at straws of some tenuous link that he's trying to big up? i.e. some community meeting up north on border issues feeding into the broader Good Friday Agreement process that he attended suddenly makes him part of the delegation?

I think its odd no mention of that on his website (which he seriously needs a web designer to help him with BTW) if he was so heavily involved?

pixelburp · 16-10-2018 12:59pm

Sean Gallagher's refusal to appear on that debate betrayed either a staggering arrogance over his own perceived status, or was a pretty epic blunder by his PR team. In theory the logic was sound, if you squint I guess. All the wrong signals were sent out, particularly given his already spotty history with Presidential elections, alongside the obvious question of his contributions in the 7 years since the last campaign. Once again Gallagher has played himself and I'd not be surprised if any new poll shows collapsed support.

gmisk · 16-10-2018 1:00pm

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

Number one spoofer?

In fairness Casey is the one I would pick to go for a pint with, I would say he is great oul craic.

Zubeneschamali · 16-10-2018 1:02pm

Hurrache wrote: »

Casey claimed last night he was part of the Good Friday delegation.

Irish times ... Casey was involved in the peace process after the Good Friday Agreement and has some very interesting views on how Brexit will play out in the North, including the possibility of an independent Ulster.

Broadsheet reporting on Morning ireland: I was part of the Good Friday Peace Delegation to the White House that ended up with the team that, sorry, that discussed and ended up making the recommendations that essentially ended up with the Good Friday Peace Agreement.

If I read that right, he went to meetings Stateside.

alaimacerc · 16-10-2018 1:03pm

Hurrache wrote: »

Casey claimed last night he was part of the Good Friday delegation. Does anyone know if this is true, or is he clutching at straws of some tenuous link that he's trying to big up? i.e. some community meeting up north on border issues feeding into the broader Good Friday Agreement process that he attended suddenly makes him part of the delegation?

Here's the fullest version of what he said that I can find:

Peter Casey wrote:

I was part of the Good Friday Peace Delegation to the White House that ended up with the team that, sorry, that discussed and ended up making the recommendations that essentially ended up with the Good Friday Peace Agreement.

I'm sensing "essentially" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. He was in someone's doughnut for some glad-handing exercise in Washington. He wasn't in any negotiating team for the talks themselves.

So not even a community meeting up north, really.

Hurrache · 16-10-2018 1:04pm

gmisk wrote: »

I think its odd no mention of that on his website (which he seriously needs a web designer to help him with BTW) if he was so heavily involved?

That's the thing, you think he'd build upon that. But instead it's always mentioned as a one liner as part of a broader statement.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Irish times ... Casey was involved in the peace process after the Good Friday Agreement and has some very interesting views on how Brexit will play out in the North, including the possibility of an independent Ulster.

Broadsheet reporting on Morning ireland: I was part of the Good Friday Peace Delegation to the White House that ended up with the team that, sorry, that discussed and ended up making the recommendations that essentially ended up with the Good Friday Peace Agreement.

If I read that right, he went to meetings Stateside.

But very little substance added to that. It should be a major selling point for him if he was involved at a reasonable level. So it's odd that he doesn't do anything further with it other than just mention it in passing.

Sycamore Tree · 16-10-2018 1:04pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Sean Gallagher's refusal to appear on that debate betrayed either a staggering arrogance over his own perceived status, or was a pretty epic blunder by his PR team. In theory the logic was sound, if you squint I guess. All the wrong signals were sent out, particularly given his already spotty history with Presidential elections, alongside the obvious question of his contributions in the 7 years since the last campaign. Once again Gallagher has played himself and I'd not be surprised if any new poll shows collapsed support.

I know. 7 years of reflection and he makes a major blunder at the first real hurdle. Idiotic move. Game over.

richiepurgas · 16-10-2018 1:22pm

I watched the debate later last night. How bloody awful, an overdose of clichés and cheesiness. Now, I'm beginning to regret that Gemma O'Doherty didn't get a nomination. At least we would have had no problem in staying awake.

James Brown · 16-10-2018 2:03pm

nuac wrote: »

Both Higgins and Gallagher should take part in all these debates. A no-show shows a lack of respect for the voters, and the tax-payers

On October 2nd the Pres gave out his schedule. It hasn't changed. Any kicking up from Gallagher or the other chancers is just stirring. He wasn't a 'no show'. A no show would need be expected and then not show up.

James Brown · 16-10-2018 2:05pm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

No fan of Higgins to be honest and think he's taking the piss by standing again at this stage... but as with the rest of our political system, the alternatives are so much worse that suddenly he becomes the only real choice for most people.

I think he's saving us from the alternatives.

RTE planted the heckler.
What's the odds that by chance, of all the people who applied for tickets or were 'randomly' invited, one would be her, the 'comedian' who tried to run?
Poor move by RTE. Tacky and cheap. Haven't the dragons cheapened it enough already?

James Brown · 16-10-2018 2:09pm

Sycamore Tree wrote: »

I know. 7 years of reflection and he makes a major blunder at the first real hurdle. Idiotic move. Game over.

That's his ego in the driving seat and a fine example of why he's not fit for any public office.

alaimacerc · 16-10-2018 2:28pm

Casey is on Moncrieff. This could be excruuuuuuuuuuuuciating.

alaimacerc · 16-10-2018 2:29pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What's the odds that by chance, of all the people who applied for tickets or were 'randomly' invited, one would be her, the 'comedian' who tried to run?

Of all the people? How many do you reckon are beating down the door?

alaimacerc · 16-10-2018 2:34pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Casey is on Moncrieff. This could be excruuuuuuuuuuuuciating.

That's odd, he sorta half-asked the duck/horse question, and Casey sorta sotte voce half-answer, on the grounds of being out of time. (The wrong answer, of course.) Whereas with Gallagher, he "I've started so I'll finish" one question, then asked that one entirely after the time.

Clear irregularities to the process!

No homework and free ice cream. Casey has to ask if 4th class kids have the vote.

Still by far his strongest performance to date.

Capt'n Midnight · 16-10-2018 2:45pm

blanch152 wrote: »

From last week's poll which had him at 70%:

"He has over 60% support across most age groups, with 83% support among 18-34-year-olds. His support is also national – with 79% support in Dublin, 70% in the rest of Leinster, 67% in Munster and 63% in Connacht/Ulster."

A low turnout in Dublin, and a low-turnout among 18-34 year olds, together with some slippage would at worst see him mid-50s in terms of percentage on the day.

He would really need to see the headline number drop well below 60% before we could even think of a second count, and even then, if it dropped that far, more would come out to vote for him, keeping him above 50%.

Really hard to see any scenario where he could lose, based on those figures.

Like I've posted before, last time out Higgins got 2.5 times as many transfers.

So even if Higgins got 30% and Gallagher 40%, and even if 6.5% of the votes are untransferable, a 2.5:1 spit would be 17.5% : 7%, Higgins scrapes through.

It's like 1990 where Brian Lenihan was 5% ahead and still lost. Except Gallagher isn't 5% ahead.

James Brown · 16-10-2018 2:48pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Of all the people? How many do you reckon are beating down the door?

Well the studio probably seats a couple of hundred? I know with prime Time and that they use to invite students to make up the numbers and invite folk who attended other shows. A lot of people like to be on telly or part of it.
There's 4 million plus in the country and what, six or seven put themselves forward to run?
How likely do you think it was that she was invited unbeknownst to the show?

alaimacerc · 16-10-2018 3:03pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Well the studio probably seats a couple of hundred? I know with prime Time and that they use to invite students to make up the numbers and invite folk who attended other shows. A lot of people like to be on telly or part of it.

That seems to argue that it's generally easy to get in. Unless this is much more popular than the typical CBL... which doesn't seem to exactly how this election is panning out.

There's 4 million plus in the country and what, six or seven put themselves forward to run?

Quite a few more than that, if we count all the spoofers that showed up to council nomination meetings. Seven that got any sort of public nomination. (Is this point related?)

How likely do you think it was that she was invited unbeknownst to the show?

Dunno. You'd think they'd have some sort of cop-on, especially given her previous appearance on the programme. And they weren't doing contributions from the floor, so there's no legit reason to deliberately have her there.

If it's a plot and a conspiracy, how long do you think it'll stay secret in RTE? (Gossippy gadabouts? Them? As if!)

marieholmfan · 16-10-2018 3:04pm

How do these people succeed. A horse sized duck would be terrifying.

marieholmfan · 16-10-2018 3:05pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

If it's a plot and a conspiracy, how long do you think it'll stay secret in RTE? (Gossippy gadabouts? Them? As if!)

A conspiracy against who?

alaimacerc · 16-10-2018 3:06pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

A conspiracy against who?

Clickedy de links.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

RTE planted the heckler.

James Brown · 16-10-2018 3:39pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

...

If it's a plot and a conspiracy, how long do you think it'll stay secret in RTE? (Gossippy gadabouts? Them? As if!)

It's simply not believable nor credible that it was random.
I know they feed the audience questions to ensure they get some sparkage I believe they planted this person to stir up. It's not a conspiracy. They put a plant in the audience to get the show going.
They put that lad who asked Pat Kenny about his salary in the front row, him only after being interviewed that week elsewhere. They put that limerick chap in the front row of the LLS because he's critical of Frank McCourt's take on Limerick. It's par for the course. In this case, tacky.

alaimacerc · 16-10-2018 4:11pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's simply not believable nor credible that it was random.
I know they feed the audience questions to ensure they get some sparkage I believe they planted this person to stir up. It's not a conspiracy. They put a plant in the audience to get the show going.

Let me see if I've got this right. The questions are all scripted, the interruption was staged, but word of this doesn't get out, due to the infamously Stalinist discipline and security at Montrose. But this is wouldn't be fairly described as a "conspiracy"?

They put that lad who asked Pat Kenny about his salary in the front row, him only after being interviewed that week elsewhere. They put that limerick chap in the front row of the LLS because he's critical of Frank McCourt's take on Limerick. It's par for the course. In this case, tacky.

Obviously some people are invited on to ask questions, or at least the prep including garnering some that the presenter knows about in advance. I think that's pretty explicit in the format. Indeed, often this happens with pretty well-known people and there's excessive back-and-forth with them, they're just slightly too far down the bill to get floor-directed onto the panel proper.

But you're suggesting they're deliberately disrupting their own show. I don't think that passes the smell test for "chance of ever so slightly increasing ratings" vs "people getting fired if word of such antics leaks out".

alaimacerc · 16-10-2018 4:15pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

How do these people succeed. A horse sized duck would be terrifying.

Exactly! And waaaay more aggressive.

Unless you get them in breeding season, horses are notoriously flighty animals. Ducks, though, are just arseholes.

A swan'll break your arm. One of those weighs about 10kg. A half-ton duck? Ermagawd.

Cork Boy 53 · 16-10-2018 4:47pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's simply not believable nor credible that it was random.
I know they feed the audience questions to ensure they get some sparkage I believe they planted this person to stir up. It's not a conspiracy. They put a plant in the audience to get the show going.
They put that lad who asked Pat Kenny about his salary in the front row, him only after being interviewed that week elsewhere. They put that limerick chap in the front row of the LLS because he's critical of Frank McCourt's take on Limerick. It's par for the course. In this case, tacky.

If it was pre arranged then RTE did a piss poor job of it. No shots of Bunty on camera, no clear audio of what she was shouting out. Its hard to believe that if it was a setup they would be that incompetent.

James Brown · 16-10-2018 5:14pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Let me see if I've got this right. The questions are all scripted, the interruption was staged, but word of this doesn't get out, due to the infamously Stalinist discipline and security at Montrose. But this is wouldn't be fairly described as a "conspiracy"?

Obviously some people are invited on to ask questions, or at least the prep including garnering some that the presenter knows about in advance. I think that's pretty explicit in the format. Indeed, often this happens with pretty well-known people and there's excessive back-and-forth with them, they're just slightly too far down the bill to get floor-directed onto the panel proper.

But you're suggesting they're deliberately disrupting their own show. I don't think that passes the smell test for "chance of ever so slightly increasing ratings" vs "people getting fired if word of such antics leaks out".

Word doesn't get out? It's par for the course. You submit your questions ahead of time and those chosen are given back, edited on nice little cards. I'm giving you word, you're refusing to accept it is all. These 'randomers' aren't always random. It's how television production works. They want the host to have a heads up of the questions coming and who to ask. They want the show to be interesting with certain topics covered. It's a television show not random folk bumped into on the street. I'm not here to break the story, only to say in this instance it was tacky.
Or maybe the comedian/candidate happened to be in the studio :rolleyes:

James Brown · 16-10-2018 5:19pm

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

If it was pre arranged then RTE did a piss poor job of it. No shots of Bunty on camera, no clear audio of what she was shouting out. Its hard to believe that if it was a setup they would be that incompetent.

And that would shock you? Poor quality RTE? Have you seen the lighting and heard live bands on RTE?

alaimacerc · 16-10-2018 5:22pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Word doesn't get out? It's par for the course. You submit your questions ahead of time and those chosen are given back, edited on nice little cards. I'm giving you word, you're refusing to accept it is all. These 'randomers' aren't always random. It's how television production works. I'm not here to break the story, only to say in this in stance it was tacky.

Now you're just "explaining" back to me what I've just said. What I'm expressing skepticism about is your original claim:

RTE planted the heckler.

Are you saying that the producers were party to a scheme to pretend to disrupt the programme, or not? If you're now merely saying she was approved to attend or invited on the basis of possibly asking a question, your above characterisation is sensationalised at best.

I'd have anyone writing that as a tabloid headline fired. As I would anyone party to the sort of scheme you originally implied.

blanch152 · 16-10-2018 5:31pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Well the studio probably seats a couple of hundred? I know with prime Time and that they use to invite students to make up the numbers and invite folk who attended other shows. A lot of people like to be on telly or part of it.
There's 4 million plus in the country and what, six or seven put themselves forward to run?
How likely do you think it was that she was invited unbeknownst to the show?

The protest parties liked to populate those programmes as much as possible in the past. For a while RTE tried to screen it a bit better, but there are ways around that.

alaimacerc · 16-10-2018 5:38pm

blanch152 wrote: »

The protest parties liked to populate those programmes as much as possible in the past. For a while RTE tried to screen it a bit better, but there are ways around that.

Apparently they're "selected by an external company to be representative both geographically, politically and demographically of the electorate", according to a statement.

Bunty's talked to the Indo (sadly), and seems to suggest that she was hoping to ask a question, and lost the run of herself. You could take that at face value, or if you want to be just slightly more cynical, suppose that she'd planned to do it from the start. Or just reckoned her question wasn't going to be called, and resorted to Plan B.

James Brown · 16-10-2018 5:39pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Now you're just "explaining" back to me what I've just said. What I'm expressing skepticism about is your original claim:

Are you saying that the producers were party to a scheme to pretend to disrupt the programme, or not? If you're now merely saying she was approved to attend or invited on the basis of possibly asking a question, your above characterisation is sensationalised at best.

I'd have anyone writing that as a tabloid headline fired. As I would anyone party to the sort of scheme you originally implied.

I was giving an over view is all, apologies.
Yes I am. I am saying she was invited to be in the audience with full knowledge of who she was.
The audience is in studio long before air time. They mingle they fill out question forms. The ones the producers like are picked/edited and returned. Sorry if I'm covering old ground here. The idea that she was there hanging around and not noticed is not believable. The fact she was there randomly in the first place is not believable. You're free to your own opinion on that of course.

So Michael D IS running again!

Comments