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

alaimacerc

Post-mortem on the debate on Morning Ireland a few moments ago. Correspondent was rather (too?) kind about the moderator's performance, he of course being late of their parish...

alaimacerc

Goldengirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Was that by any chance another Newsnight appearance? (Maybe they have her block-booked for a bulk discount!)

Goldengirl

This post has been deleted.

Goldengirl

This post has been deleted.

Eric Cartman

Goldengirl wrote: »

Education is for all the children of Ireland.
So you think the State should not bother chasing up non attendance or providing resources to children, based on "practices " in their "community" ?

I think the state should be chasing it up and getting tusla involved, for far too long it has been common practice for traveller families to remove their kids from school, robbing yet another generation of a chance of integrating into the wider community and becoming productive members of society, the blame for this lies solely with their 'community' , not the state or settled people.

Goldengirl

This post has been deleted.

alaimacerc

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I don’t believe the calibre of candidates is at the heart of the problem identified by pixelburp and others. I think most people would agree the standard of candidate was higher in 2011, but I don’t remember the process being any more elevating.

Higher overall yes, though the second-placed candidate was... the same spoofer as was last seen running second this time. So we can blame the electorate, as well as the nominating councils!

"Elevating" is a tough ask, You'd have the same basic problem: waffle around policies they can't actually implement, stuff about tone, and the dreaded character stuff. We have to grin and bear it, really.

As a practical matter, if you go for abolition simpliciter, you'd presumably have to make the taoiseach head of state. No serving head of government is going to be daft enough to make themselves the target of the unmerciful taunting they'd get for that...

Loafing Oaf

alaimacerc wrote: »

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So why have an election for the role at all?

I know I keep interjecting with this, but it seems to be the logical outcome of this train of thought. However, few of you seem willing to go all the way there.

The logical conclusion is for the people in charge of the nomination process to take it a bit more seriously. Which I realize is a big ask, as they're local councillors. (Changing the process as such, much less abolishing the position, would require another painful such exercise, to wit a referendum.)

I don’t believe the calibre of candidates is at the heart of the problem identified by pixelburp and others. I think most people would agree the standard of candidate was higher in 2011, but I don’t remember the process being any more elevating.

alaimacerc

Casey and Riada almost exactly in agreement on the optimal presidential salary -- €120k, half what it is at present. Horseshoe theory in unexpected operation...?

alaimacerc

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I think what annoys people is not the assistance travellers get, but the havoc some travellers cause, whether that be through criminality, or being a law unto themselves on the roads or trashing whatever state housing they are provided with. And these people can act with seeming impunity. Then there's Pavee Point who have great difficulty in calling out bad behavior and are generally seen as apologists for it. Those that have told me they are voting Casey have said he is being refreshingly honest, finally someone is speaking plainly what they have been thinking but couldn't verbalise

This getting like The Debating of the Five Thousand. "People are telling me," etc, etc. Feel free to just give us your view at some point, rather than having the rest of us try to contend with vague shadow proxies.

You're the one -- on behalf of your constituents, naturally -- that raised the issue of resentment of the supposedly lavish state benefits. Why bother, if you're going to immediately pivot to the tired old "they bring it on themselves with their bad behaviour" stuff.

This is the audience Casey is playing to, and many will be surprised here by how will it will resonate I suspect. You only have to go to AH to see many have sympathetic views to his.

AH is AH. But sadly there's nothing especially surprising here. You'd have to move in very rarefied versions of "polite company" indeed not to hear one version of other of this sort of thing. The only surprise is we haven't had the full slew of the "traditional" epithets. (Maybe the mods are on top of that.)

MrMusician18

alaimacerc wrote: »

Is the narrative that it's specifically Travellers? I thought the rotating tabloid crime-correspondent narrative was that it was organised crime cartels. Or assorted East Europeans. Or whatever the bogeyman du jour is, I suppose.

Some people are shopping around for people to be "galled" about. By every measure they're an acutely disadvantaged community. People are having their outrage every possible way. They mustn't be allowed to park by the side of the road! They mustn't be given dedicated halting sites! They mustn't be given assistance into settled homes!

It's almost as if some people would be outraged regardless of what happens.

I think what annoys people is not the assistance travellers get, but the havoc some travellers cause, whether that be through criminality, or being a law unto themselves on the roads or trashing whatever state housing they are provided with. And these people can act with seeming impunity. Then there's Pavee Point who have great difficulty in calling out bad behavior and are generally seen as apologists for it. Those that have told me they are voting Casey have said he is being refreshingly honest, finally someone is speaking plainly what they have been thinking but couldn't verbalise

This is the audience Casey is playing to, and many will be surprised here by how will it will resonate I suspect. You only have to go to AH to see many have sympathetic views to his.

alaimacerc

Pat seems to be forgetting he's not running for president. Answering LNR's questions about the definition of terrorism, back-and-forthing with her about the Troubles stuff...

alaimacerc

"Cosy consensus of the establishment parties." Should be in the standing politics drinking game.

What's the price of entry to the "establishment"? Third-biggest party in the state not qualify?

FrancieBrady

MrMusician18 wrote: »

They are looking for solutions, but solutions are hard to come by if no one in authority acknowledges the issues for fear of being called a racist.

I personally know of a few people who will be backing Casey now (not me btw) on the back of his remarks. They understand he hasn't any solutions but they tell me that he is at least acknowledging the ridiculousness in the way the state has indulged this group and is being honest in the way he is calling it out. They agree with Casey that the other candidates were not being honest when they said they wouldn't mind having a halting sure beside their house.

Giving people self esteem is one way of incentivising them to solve their own problems.
The ethnicity status cost nobody anything, but it may have helped in a practical way those working with the community. (I know somebody very well who says it did, in a real way)
But along comes a loud mouth and damages any gains achieved for what? A few votes from similar people, blinded by hate and with no solutions themselves.

alaimacerc

MDH: "You'll excuse me if I say that that's a rather long introduction to your question..."

Not a regular Plank listener, then, if that came as any sort of surprise...

alaimacerc

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What many people in rural Ireland in particular feel (and I'm not saying it's justified or correct) is that they are under siege from Traveller gangs robbing all around then with seeming impunity.

Is the narrative that it's specifically Travellers? I thought the rotating tabloid crime-correspondent narrative was that it was organised crime cartels. Or assorted East Europeans. Or whatever the bogeyman du jour is, I suppose.

What's more it galls many to pass state provided halting sites, packed with the trappings of disposable wealth (expensive 4x4s and vans), with housing and every service provided by a submissive state no questions asked.

Some people are shopping around for people to be "galled" about. By every measure they're an acutely disadvantaged community. People are having their outrage every possible way. They mustn't be allowed to park by the side of the road! They mustn't be given dedicated halting sites! They mustn't be given assistance into settled homes!

It's almost as if some people would be outraged regardless of what happens.

MrMusician18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And they are looking for solutions to that. And a publicity junkie spouting hate on the telly is not, they know well, going to deliver any solutions.
He is a one day wonder I reckon.

They are looking for solutions, but solutions are hard to come by if no one in authority acknowledges the issues for fear of being called a racist.

I personally know of a few people who will be backing Casey now (not me btw) on the back of his remarks. They understand he hasn't any solutions but they tell me that he is at least acknowledging the ridiculousness in the way the state has indulged this group and is being honest in the way he is calling it out. They agree with Casey that the other candidates were not being honest when they said they wouldn't mind having a halting sure beside their house.

FrancieBrady

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I wouldn't count on people thinking that the problem is particularly complex. What many people in rural Ireland in particular feel (and I'm not saying it's justified or correct) is that they are under siege from Traveller gangs robbing all around then with seeming impunity. What's more it galls many to pass state provided halting sites, packed with the trappings of disposable wealth (expensive 4x4s and vans), with housing and every service provided by a submissive state no questions asked.

And they are looking for solutions to that. And a publicity junkie spouting hate on the telly is not, they know well, going to deliver any solutions.
He is a one day wonder I reckon.

Cork Boy 53

Aska wrote: »

Pat mentioned a debate next week on the Tonight Show (the thoughts of Matt Cooper asking the questions and butting is almost too cringy), but does that mean that it will be a debate with the other 4 again? Isn't MDH only doing tonights and the Primetime one ? so that would rule him and SG out of the tonight shows attempt at a debate

Well that is the way it will be unless Gallagher feels he has to show up to be in with a chance of claiming his expenses come polling day.

MrMusician18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm from a rural area and I think most people understand that the solution to the problem is a little more complex than somebody who has already proven himself to be a kneejerk publicity junkie using it to enhance his chances of getting a job he hasn't a hope of getting.

I wouldn't count on people thinking that the problem is particularly complex. What many people in rural Ireland in particular feel (and I'm not saying it's justified or correct) is that they are under siege from Traveller gangs robbing all around then with seeming impunity. What's more it galls many to pass state provided halting sites, packed with the trappings of disposable wealth (expensive 4x4s and vans), with housing and every service provided by a submissive state no questions asked.

alaimacerc

rubadub wrote: »

I think they are quite fitting for people knowingly & repeatedly going against public safety guidelines for presumably their own financial gain.

And I think you've capably demonstrated you're an unfit person to determine any such thing.

careful now, your horrible scatological abuse might upset the same sort of c**t/pr**k who gets upset over "gendered abuse" :rolleyes:

I think you might be getting a little "tired and emotional". Maybe time to have a bit a lie down to sleep it off-- eh, "rest"?

Aska

Pat mentioned a debate next week on the Tonight Show (the thoughts of Matt Cooper asking the questions and butting is almost too cringy), but does that mean that it will be a debate with the other 4 again? Isn't MDH only doing tonights and the Primetime one ? so that would rule him and SG out of the tonight shows attempt at a debate

Royal Legend

MrMusician18 wrote: »

He will. A lot of people do not like travellers, particularly in rural areas.

There is a perception (whether true or not, I don't know) that travellers are responsible for a lot of rural crime, particularly farm robberies and fuel thefts.

Hmm, is that the word :rolleyes:

Royal Legend

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

He puts these posters up himself, does he? :rolleyes: "Scumbag", how juvenile.

Not unless he had a big cherrypicker he didn't :rolleyes:

rubadub

alaimacerc wrote: »

"Scumbag" and "vile piece of work" are ludicrously over-the-top, i

I think they are quite fitting for people knowingly & repeatedly going against public safety guidelines for presumably their own financial gain.

alaimacerc wrote: »

The Potty-Mouthed District Tidiness Committee.

careful now, your horrible scatological abuse might upset the same sort of c**t/pr**k who gets upset over "gendered abuse" :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

MrMusician18 wrote: »

He will. A lot of people do not like travellers, particularly in rural areas.

There is a perception (whether true or not, I don't know) that travellers are responsible for a lot of rural crime, particularly farm robberies and fuel thefts.

I'm from a rural area and I think most people understand that the solution to the problem is a little more complex than somebody who has already proven himself to be a kneejerk publicity junkie using it to enhance his chances of getting a job he hasn't a hope of getting.

alaimacerc

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So why have an election for the role at all?

I know I keep interjecting with this, but it seems to be the logical outcome of this train of thought. However, few of you seem willing to go all the way there.

The logical conclusion is for the people in charge of the nomination process to take it a bit more seriously. Which I realize is a big ask, as they're local councillors. (Changing the process as such, much less abolishing the position, would require another painful such exercise, to wit a referendum.)

Rjd2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well Casey has obviously convinced some (on here anyway) that he can address the traveller issue by admitting and loudly proclaiming that a president cannot influence the government. So nothing would surprise me including a few percent rise for Gallagher too.

Liadh and Casey probably will get a few more votes due to tonight and this week. Higgins? Dunno tbh, he will get around 65% no matter what he does.

Sean tried to play the elder statesman tonight and was laughable tbh.

Loafing Oaf

pixelburp wrote: »

One things for sure, when the role contains no legislative powers worth speaking of, this whole debate becomes a vapid parade of posturing and rhetoric. Mixed with the obvious ignorance over what the actual role entails. The Carey traveller waffling shows this, alongside the pointless questions over Irish Water and the ilk. With no ability to fashion real change, you're left with empty populist nonsense that goes nowhere.

So why have an election for the role at all?

I know I keep interjecting with this, but it seems to be the logical outcome of this train of thought. However, few of you seem willing to go all the way there.

MrMusician18

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Peter Casey thinks he'll get a bump with this issue. He won't.

He will. A lot of people do not like travellers, particularly in rural areas.

There is a perception (whether true or not, I don't know) that travellers are responsible for a lot of rural crime, particularly farm robberies and fuel thefts.