Presidential Election 2025

Think Liam missed this question

High wage earners, unless I'm missing something, don't get serious credits or incentives on tax that others don't

Maybe I'm missing something but his Facebook doesn't have a picture of Catherine Connolly as the profile pic

And Dr Stack… But what point could they make about the process by doing that? Assuming Connolly takes the keys from Higgins on the 10th or 11th of November you're looking at a byelection before the 2nd week of May as legally it has to be within 6 months. I'd say that whoever Catherine Connolly hand picks will be the one to get the seat

If they have such a problem with the system, get a mandate.

Casey would have walked the next general election if he ran (presumably in Donegal), put his money where his mouth is

I'm not denying that you make some valid points. I agree with you for example on the delivery of social housing, but remember if the government diverts developers to social housing schemes that leaves less labour availability, more materials demand and higher land costs for the private sector. That's fine if that is what the people want. But they're being sold a unicorn solution by the likes of SF at the moment who proclaim we can lower house prices by building more houses without any negative repercussions for the housing market.

I also agree with you on the parish pump politics interfering with the planning process. Not even going to debate that with you as I agree strongly.

If current property prices are reduced significantly and in a short space of time (which I believe is very difficult to do without deflating the economy) then the banks will have loaned money on assets that the value of the assets will no longer cover if liquidated. That's fine if people keep making their mortgage repayments, but if there are defaults, then the banks go under again. Also, as the owner myself of a very modest semi-D I do care about house prices falling, not because I want to cash in on my asset but because my mortgage LTV ratio will increase as will my interest repayments on my mortgage. See now why quickly and sharply reducing house prices isn't a panacea for everyone. Supply increase has to be done in way that doesn't break the system. How we got here is the issue, post recession we didn't build fast enough to keep up with demand. A centrist position would look at ways to increase supply moderately while also making attempts to slow down demand. There's no easy fix and crucially, no popular one either.

I'll be honest, I don't have much knowledge about Sláintecare and how it proposes to fix the inefficiencies in the health system. But I support the idea in principle and the government should be acting on it more quickly than they are, so we agree there.

And yes my costs have raised by more than €12 per year. That's not the point, the point is that the government has to balance the books somehow and increasing current spending on social welfare by more than they have done would be fiscally reckless. Where is the tax revenue coming from to support the increase? Our tax receipts are precarious as it is. I agree with the concept of a welfare state and its necessity but it has to be carefully managed so as not to ruin the national finances. And let's be honest, social welfare will never be decreased if a deflationary economic situation should arise. That would be politically toxic. So I would say my position on that is centrist, we should have a welfare state (contrary to the far right), but it should be managed responsibly (contrary to the far left).

And back on topic, I will be voting for the more centrist candidate tomorrow, even though she is a poor public speaker. The leftist candidate I believe will do more harm than good. I've always viewed centrism as the politics of realism not idealism. Idealism is the penchant of the extremes on both sides of the spectrum.

If you want to debate the centrist / housing / health system thing further just PM me. It's good debate but not for this forum.

Well on a more serious note, the lines are entirely blurring. There are many right wing politicians who make a lot of sense on foreign policy in particular. And a lot more sense, in contrast to many on the left.

On housing, I think you and I should agree to disagree. Honestly iv watched it for years, and viewed no progress. Not a little bit of progress, i mean ZERO progress. What affordable housing that becomes available, is not enough to keep up with demand.

In terms of social housing, every year housing lists are increasing, and the list is getting longer and longer. Look at the rent allowance and HAP levels, which are designed to assist people to get back into employment, while maintaining a roof over there heads. This is a genuine recommendation; look at the levels. They are totally out of sync with reality. When right wingers complain that people are getting 'free housing' its simply not the case at all. Rent has continued to rise, and no allowance has been given to cope with this.

In terms of affordable housing, we need to have a conversation about the meaning of the word 'affordable'. Affordable to whom? To someone who already owns property, and wants to become a landlord? Yes. To a first time buyer on modest income? Absolutely not.

We can talk about populism - was it populist for FFG to give energy credits, and one off cost of living payments, every year BEFORE an election? And then in the first budget AFTERWARD, pull the ripcord? Because that is precisely what they did.

I dont sense a lot of agreement here, and frankly I doubt my ability to change minds, especially on this. But do me a favour, go and look at the supposed rent allowances as they exists, currently. And ask yourself are these rates justifiable in the current housing crisis?

In relation to the previous post about housing - yes i think perhaps you, me and @Podge_irl could get into that. We could do it behind the scenes, DM - or maybe a seperate thread. I feel passionate about it, as an issue. And we could debate it fairly - 100% happy to do this.

RE the Barrister/Smear Story.

CAVEAT - im not a barrister - i did a degree in IR and political science which touched on law a few times, but thats it! IM speaking broadly with the information I have obtained here, and elsewhere -

I have attacked Connolly for weeks, on foreign policy, on judgement, and on her general temperment as a radical left wing activist.

But who she worked with, and represented is no buisiness of ours. She was a barrister, and will have been assigned cases, as they became available according to the Cab Rank Rule. Her grounds to refuse a case are very limited, she would have had to apply to be excused. 'Not Liking' the nature of the case, or the 'client', are not sufficient grounds. While I acknowledge that many barristers probably finesse the system, as to have themselves excused, it is not ethical to do so. She takes the cases she is assigned and deals with them. This is to her credit in my view. She likely did not get to CHOOSE which cases she takes, but she completed the work adequately despite this.

In terms of this damaging her credibility when it comes to being outspoken on the issue, it has no bearing on it. She could credibly claim that actually, it empowers her to speak on this issue. She has first hand experience of the banks, and the tactics employed to see people dehoused. But the calls of hypocrisy are unwarranted, because the issue should never have been raised.

It is entirely wrong to bring a TD/Candidates case history into Party Politics. When they worked as a barrister, who they represented should have no bearing on their political life. If this current story is acepted as valid, then we have an entirely new precident. Are we now entitled to case lists for every TD, who previously served as a barrister? Clearly we should be, which should rule out any TD who defended a violent criminal, or sex offender. Depending on individual taste, we could also rule out anyone who defended a corperation, or company which was charged with fraud? Are we, the electorate, entitled to do this? Absolutely not in my opinion, what about you? Should we only permit the election of TD's who represented Green Peace and Palestine Action? Again I say, no - it shouldnt mater. What do you say?

This story was created in order for FG and HH to appear credible in attacking CC as a hypcrit. Many voters may have fallen for this, as most do not interogate stories that appear in the mainstream media. I dont think it moves the dial enough to alter the inevitable outcome, but it was a last ditch attempt to swing the election. Despite being opposed to CC, I am opposed to political smear tactics. After failing to credibly interrogate CC on her foreign policy, this story was simply drummed up as a way to perhaps slice at CC's working class voters. I predict that in years to come, this fiasco will be covered by the media, and all will acknowledge the true nature of the story.

The only hypocrisy on display is from FG, as it was Endas government that remained in power, when the lion share of repossession cases were taking place. They could have placed a ban on this practice - i mean, we technically owned part of the banking system at that stage, did we not? If you are looking for hypocrisy, look no further than the blue shirts pal - its been ever present for decades.

Connolly now at 1/50 and Humphreys at 16/1 on Boyle Sports. Do any FG supporters regret FG's candidate choice?

The Indo/Ireland Thinks poll asked a question abou the RTE Primetime debate. 67% thought that Connolly won, 18% thought Humphreys won and 15% didn't know.

Connolly was at 40%, Humphreys at 25% and Gavin at 7%. DKs, Won't Vote and Spoiled Vote at 28%.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/presidential-election/catherine-connolly-on-course-to-win-presidential-election-on-first-count-new-irish-independentireland-thinks-poll/a10757922.html

There is a possibility that Gavin might not get enough votes to enable FF to get expenses.

I just feel very switched off by this election and it's nothing to do with the other potential candidates not being on the ticket, but I just don't feel very like I was warming to any of them tbh.

The campaign style was awful - smears, smears and more smears. I don't come away from this with any sense that anyone really set out a grand vision for the presidency or what it's about. It's all been reacting to irrelevant topics, below the belt stuff and so on.

I was going to rush halfway across the country to vote tomorrow as I'm away for business meetings today and tomorrow, but honestly, I don't know if I'm bothered.

It was such a low energy campaign and I just feel like half the country, including most of the would be candidates, either don't know or don't care what the presidency is about. The commentary around it seems to be about executive decisions in government policy rather than what the role actually entails and loads of people seem way off in US politics on this online, to the point I'm just becoming disillusioned with Irish political commentary entirely.

The only sane way to treat Irish politics is as entertainment. This election was certainly entertaining in that the front runner (McGuinness) dropped out and things went completely pear-shaped from there. FG, being FG, chose a candidate who was only popular within FG and rejected a candidate (Sean Kelly) with a proven track record of getting votes. FF had Martin's mini-me, Gavin imposed on it rather than Billy Kelleher who probably would have won. Connolly, more than any other president is an unlikely president as everything that could go wrong for FFG went wrong. Sooner or later, FFG members are going to realise that their leadership failed.

It’s how I tend to vote in presidential elections too -ie all candidates

That's the point of PR-STV

Sorry - i did indeed miss the question - it was a sort of quick fire round there, and i was responding to people - who were in the process of responding to me - etc etc - I had about 9 notifications at one stage

What i was referring to was the method by which FFG intend to deal with the Cost of Living Crisis. Its clear moving forward that FFG tend to prefer offering tax credits, as opposed to energy credits, and one off social payments. If you have two individuals, who are both suffering due to the cost of living increases, FFG are proposing Tax credits to deal with it.

• Therefore the individual who earns more, and is therefore suffering less - will receive more money back in the form of a tax credit.
• The person on a lower wage, and therefore suffering more from the same cost of living increases - they are aportioned a smaller benefit from these policies. Because their tax credit will be smaller

I feel that the above justifies my position. Someone on a seriously high wage, will proportionally get a big kick back, based on cost of living, in contrast to someone who is struggling. That, in my opinion, is beyond credible. You are entirely entitled to disagree, but I stand by my opinion. I wondered when FFG announced an end to the Energy Credit, and one-off-cost of living payments, what they intended to do to 'fill that gap'.

A tax credit system makes little sense to me, because those who benefit more from it, are probably suffering far less hardship - if they are suffering it at all. But if you are on the centre right, and want to hold on to the middle class vote - it makes perfect sense.

Again, sorry if i seemed to dodge your question - it wasnt deliberate.