Presidential Election 2025

Obvious to me.

The SF connection (who are backing Connolly) also the SCC connection. Connolly wants the SCC abolished. SF only want it used in “exceptional circumstances” since 2021. So there is a divergence in viewpoint there.
Also it brings home the reality of violence much closer to home. Not just taking about international affairs

Connolly saying she “abhors violence” would look silly.
I would also bring up the Brian Rattigan case 2010 (built like a bull the fella) gangland criminal.

Back then not all gangland criminals were brought before the SCC. And because it was not the SCC. Rattigan’s gf got hold of the jury list somehow. Gardai found it.

https://m.independent.ie/regionals/herald/ratt-blitz-ordered-after-jury-list-found/27944391.html

Yea i would agree with you RE Humphreys.

Overll - a choppy but interesting Debate in my view.

I think the first portion of the debate was rather poor, which i attribute to Pat Kennys line of questioning. How big the portion of land is, on which the Aras is located - from my point of view, i dont care.

The Eirigi Story

HH landed blows on Connolly RE the Eirigi scandal. I felt in that last radio debate, that HH couldnt quite land the point she was trying to make. But she made contact today, and Connolly sounded defensive and shallow, when she kept failing to bring the topic back to 'rehabilitaion'. Connolly lost this portion of the debate in my opinion. Humphreys said what she needed to, and made those points easily understood. CC's responses sounded evasive, and she tripped up again referring to Eirigi as a legitimate party. Yes this is technically true, but its easily attacked by her opponent, and will probably be discussed again outside the debate. HH also managed to highlight the mock execution which the lady took part in, and yes, it is relevant.

Humphreys Constituency Issues

Humphreys seemed to dodge the criticisms well, but a listeners opinion on this portion depends on their position prior to the debate. It didnt register to me as being a huge issue, at least the part regarding her forwarding a letter to the department of agriculture. Humphreys appeared to simply apologise RE the victim of a road traffic accident. While I acknowledge that the optics of these stories are poor, I cannot see it swaying too many voters.

Connolly representing Banks in repossessions

A very poor line of questioning from Pat on this, and i dont think its a valid story to open up on. CC was a barrister, and she represented clients. Thats how it works. I dont think this will effect anyones opinion, and I personally felt sympathy for CC, with annoyance directed at Pat.

Trump Gaza Peace Plan and the Triple Lock

On the topic of Trump and the supposed Gaza Peace Plan, both candidates did OK in my view, and its difficult to disagree with either. However on the topic of the Triple lock, Connolly fell flat, and Pat did very well to highlight her nonsensical position on this. Using the example of a hypothetical peace keeping mission to Ukraine, Humphreys landed many blows on this topic, asking did the country want Moscow or Washington to have a veto on our foreign policy. In contrast to this, Connolly merely doubled down and made less sense in maintaining her positions. CC also dodged the questions RE Clare Daly and Mick Wallace, and sounded quite hollow on the question of whether they would be invited to the Aras.

Conclusion

Surprisingly, I would have to give this debate to Humphreys. She gave a more polished performance, and landed more than enough hits on CC's positions throughout. I wouldnt say that HH won by a significant margin, and its debatable whether it will have an impact on the election. But she managed the win in my humble opinion.

Connolly seemed under pressure at times. While her 'more of the same' performance, and refusal to walk back anything, will be cheered by her supporters - To me, it sounded hollow at times. Especially during the Eirigi portion of the debate, it sounded as though her chosen position was damaged, and she vocally refused to address the points raised by both PK and HH.

Lastly I will say that it was an interesting debate, of two halves. The first part was bland, and i wondered why Pat was bringing up such inconsequential topics. But when the debate moved to more topics of consequence, it was quite interesting to me.

Interested to hear what people think.

I'm surprised it's not mentioned more how often HH says 'Eh'! Most sentences contain at least a couple of 'Eh's. Speaking and formal speeches are such a huge part of the role.

Is there any other president or similar figure who stutters through sentences as much?

To me I think it shows what a difference an experienced and challenging host can make. He brought HH out of shell more.

On the land issue in the Phoenix Park. I never even considered that ever. Just view it as a valuable public space.

I think Connolly missed a trick she could have said something like “I don’t need that much space to do keepie uppies, but that is a future matter for governments of the day. Tremendous resource the Zoo etc.”

Lighten it up a bit, but that would NEVER be in Connolly’s nature to comment like that. Very taciturn. Humphreys is very dull too, but Connolly is very restrained uptight (despite the smiles) which seem forced at times.

Both are nothing like Michael D. who had that bit of devilment and mischief to him. A sense of humour. I know it doesn’t affect ability to run as POI but it might sway voters. Basically saying “I like her” bit of humour there.

I can't think of another person who attended the Dáil while on license for serious crime, so please enlighten me?

You wouldn't know about it because you are not entitled to know.

Yes she might have missed a trick about it. I like your thinking RE the Zoo, thats very fair.

I think with me, i was sitting drinking coffee, and waiting for the dabate to get started. And the first portion seemed so tame by comparison to previous debates. There was also bit about term limits, and the council of state - a bit more appropriate, but hardly worthy of debate.

No question it livened up in the second half though. I agree RE Connolly's nature not being well suited to light humour - not that Humphreys is a beacon of personality! The election is lacking a lively character, and a 'chancer' moment would be nice.

And you explained it clearly and coherently…..

That's the best response I have heard on the issue so far. I would argue that it was not her place to make such a judgement call and Ms. Shannon could have been rehabilitated elsewhere in a less sensitive environment.

I dont want to re-open the debate between us RE the Eirigi fiasco.

I will just ask you a straightforward question. RE This comment

many people did stupid stuff they later regretted or wanted to put behind them

Would it not have been a slightly easier approach for Connolly to have defused the Eirigi story 2 weeks ago, by simply stating that 'perhaps' she wasnt fully aware of the ladies background? She could then have pivotted to rehabilitation as a central position of hers. It wouldnt have had to constitute a U-Turn, merely a reframing.

Its too late now, and its going to keep coming up. I just think on some level she HAS to regret not dealing with the story in a different manner, and im wondering if you agree?

I did think of that one. It was never definitively proven as fact though.

I just wondered whether in hindsight you could see a better way of handling it.

You view it as principled - i view it as an unforced political error, but we will see what happens, and it may not matter.

The story hasnt gone away- Gavins withdrawal did mute it a bit, but its back in play now.

We will see in the next poll where things stand. Thanks for replying anyway

Anyway back to the PK debate. I was trying to figure out what part re the SCC you thought was childish?