Local elections

Gaspode wrote: »

1) Assured by whom?

2) But surely Leo was elected because of all the great work he was doing for the local community, and not because he spent a fortune on publicity. You're making a tenuous link there between an effect and a single cause. Perhaps you 100% right and his poster campaing had an effect, but I'd like to think politicians get elected for something more useful than a good profile. Otherwise we could just have Simon Cowell and his cronies set up some popularity gameshow to elect politicians!

1) Assured by a wealth of study of the accepted correlation and causation of recognition of a person/product/brand name and its subsequent success. This is hardly an earth-shattering breakthrough. Incredibly clever people are willing to spend fortunes on building recognition of their brand. You don't seriously think they do it because they like chucking money away do you? There is a mountain of material out there on the psychology of advertising, brand recognition and public relations - you should check it out.

2) Are you not in danger of making a tenuous link between cause (nebulous, difficult-to-define work done "for the local community") and effect (votes) here yourself? If such a provable link exists why do you think he bothered putting up posters at all? Why do you think he waded through traffic jams locally handing out promotional leaflets if it was all to no effect? Is there not very strong evidence in this thread that many people simply do not keep up to speed with the local political scene and have in fact no idea who's doing what locally? They get their impressions from such publicity.

Geroge Lee will be elected in Dublin South. What has he done politically? Squat. But he has had an unrivalled stab at publicity over the past few years. He will be elected on the basis of that irrespective of his lack of political track record.

And yes, the idea that a mere citizen like myself who has to get off his backside and inform himself, and those who wobble under the weight of their egos at home waiting for candidates to come to them so they can interview them, have the same voting power is called democracy. John Dunn's book on the subject is highly recommended.

But its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. As Winston Churchill said, the strongest argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Ne'er was a truer word said.

Thaedydal wrote: »

1) And how great is that you have the time to attend such things, clearly you have an avid interest not everyone does.

2) Personally I will not look down my nose at someone who is looking to start that process, and I am sure if you were to list the up coming meetings he would be grateful, also any links you have to the agendas and profiles of the candidates, as I know more then you do stuff is petty and not helpful and the better informed people are the better choices they make and includes in using their vote.

1) Ah yes, the old "I could do it too only I'm too busy" line. That's never far away.

2) Don't delude yourself that this guy is starting any "process". Some people have always made sure they are politically informed, others will rear their heads at election time and come over all marginalised and offended when they are not given a dummies' guide to the whole thing.

But please spare us the "he's trying to start a process" line, as if he is trying to reinvent democracy but announcing that he's waiting with bated breath at home to interview all the candidates. Every candidate has been in the local newspaper and at public meetings in recent weeks.

politico hobbyists like yourself are why I don't post in the politics forum and what turns the average voter who's vote is as good as yours off getting invovled, funnily enough a topic which came up last night when I was in the Dáil bar.

I was hoping that this thread would be for the average joe soaps to discuss and share info, and it that is too below you
well then I am sure the politics mods will be happy to have you in their forum.

I certainly understand the wanting to have candidates on my doorstep so I can ask the questions which are not being asked by the local papers.

athtrasna

Back to the locals in Castleknock...anyone know what Independents are running?

Powerhouse wrote: »

2) Are you not in danger of making a tenuous link between cause (nebulous, difficult-to-define work done "for the local community") and effect (votes) here yourself? If such a provable link exists why do you think he bothered putting up posters at all? Why do you think he waded through traffic jams locally handing out promotional leaflets if it was all to no effect? Is there not very strong evidence in this thread that many people simply do not keep up to speed with the local political scene and have in fact no idea who's doing what locally? They get their impressions from such publicity.

Yes, I deliberately did make that connection, it seems the irony of my comment was lost on you.

Powerhouse wrote: »

As Winston Churchill said, the strongest argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Ne'er was a truer word said.

Just as well the above average voter is here to save us all from our own apparent ignorance.

athtrasna wrote: »

Back to the locals in Castleknock...anyone know what Independents are running?

Apparently none: MiCandidate.ie

That's the best list I can find. P.ie has a 40 page epic thread - which seems a bit too much effort

So far Roderic is the only one to brave my doorstep!

Fingal - Mulhuddart

Coppinger, Ruth The Socialist Party
Dennison, Kieran Fine Gael
Donnelly, Paul Sinn Féin
Herbert, Simon Green Party
Keane, Denis The Socialist Party
Lynam, Gerry Fianna Fáil
McGuinness, David Fianna Fáil
Moran, Niamh Fianna Fáil
Nulty, Patrick The Labour Party
O'Donovan, Michael The Labour Party
Ogunsina, Adeola Fine Gael
Sulyman Olafimihan, Idowu Fianna Fáil

Fingal - Castleknock

Hamill, Peggy The Labour Party
Loftus, Eithne Fine Gael
Mahony, Howard Fianna Fáil
Maples, Charlie Sinn Féin
Murray, Mags Fianna Fáil
O'Gorman, Roderic Green Party

Ireland - Dublin MEP

Byrne1, Eibhlin Fianna Fáil
De Burca, Deirdre Green Party
De Rossa, Proinsias The Labour Party
Higgins, Joe The Socialist Party
McDonald, Mary Lou Sinn Féin
McKenna, Patricia Independent
Mitchell, Gay Fine Gael
Ryan, Eoin Fianna Fáil
Simons, Caroline Libertas
Sweeney, Emmanuel Independent

ciaran76

For my area I haven't seen any poster for Gerry Lynam or Simon Herbert.

I am aware of Gerry as he has ben around for ages and I remember when he was an Independant canidate a few years ago. Simon Herbert is a new name to me.

I think Mulhuddart will be an intresting count.

Oh I just remembered there is another person running but I don' remember his name right now he is Independant in Mulhuddart. Will get back when I remember it.:o

Edit :I walked out to look at his poster...Ignatius Okafor

athtrasna

Hasn't Gerry Lynam pulled out? I'm sure there was something in the Community Voice about it. Ill Heath I think?

ciaran76 wrote: »

For my area I haven't seen any poster for Gerry Lynam or Simon Herbert.

I am aware of Gerry as he has ben around for ages and I remember when he was an Independant canidate a few years ago. Simon Herbert is a new name to me.

I think Mulhuddart will be an intresting count.

Oh I just remembered there is another person running but I don' remember his name right now he is Independant in Mulhuddart. Will get back when I remember it.:o

Edit :I walked out to look at his poster...Ignatius Okafor

Both of the first two candidates you mentioned are not now running.

Gaspode wrote: »

Yes, I deliberately did make that connection, it seems the irony of my comment was lost on you.

Ah come on will you? The guy went from 380 votes in 1999 to 6,000 in 2007. It was an increase of epic proportions. It's a pity that you adduce a view to explain it and then when challenged decide hide behind retrospective irony, because there is an interesting treatise into human nature in that whole vote increase.

I am of course being ironic too.:rolleyes:

Thaedydal wrote: »

1) politico hobbyists like yourself are why I don't post in the politics forum and what turns the average voter who's vote is as good as yours off getting invovled, funnily enough a topic which came up last night when I was in the Dáil bar.

I was hoping that this thread would be for the average joe soaps to discuss and share info, and it that is too below you well then I am sure the politics mods will be happy to have you in their forum.

2) I certainly understand the wanting to have candidates on my doorstep so I can ask the questions which are not being asked by the local papers.

1) Wow! You were in the Dáil bar! Bully for you. (That's twice you have mentioned the trip to Leinster House - we get the message)

I have no problem with the average Joe (of which I consider myself one - I am not a 'polictio hobbyist' to use your term) discussing the local election. What I have a difficulty with is the proposition that politicial candidates should be required the visit and undergo interviews at the houses of all 50k of the electorate in the two wards.

Along with the right to vote comes the responsibility to inform yourself, and ensure that you use the vote and use it effectively and knowledgably. Let us at least be honest about one thing - what puts the 'average voter' off getting involved is generally a lack of interest. It's all too mundane for them.

It's why people support Man Yoo rather than Southampton. People like things put on a plate for them. You can be an avid supporter of the former from the armchair. In the case of the latter it take more effort. These 'average' people are too uninterested or lazy to inform themselves consistently. It's the old Sybil Fawlty 'has he been on the telly' view of the world.

I have no difficulty with that at one level. It is part of human nature and there's more people like that out there than there is of the more active and engaged citizenry. What I do have a difficulty with is such people sticking their head above the parapet once every few years when politics - courtesy of election posters - has a higher public profile such that it comes under the radar of these people, and behaving as if the world suddenly owes them an explanation for everything.

2) Which questions might they be?

Powerhouse wrote: »

1) Wow! You were in the Dáil bar! Bully for you. (That's twice you have mentioned the trip to Leinster House - we get the message)

It was fun and intresting I'd never been before and it's made me take more of an interest in this round of elections.

Powerhouse wrote: »

I have no problem with the average Joe (of which I consider myself one - I am not a 'polictio hobbyist' to use your term) discussing the local election. What I have a difficulty with is the proposition that politicial candidates should be required the visit and undergo interviews at the houses of all 50k of the electorate in the two wards.

Well for a lot of people that is what elections means to them the candidates being out and about.

Powerhouse wrote: »

Along with the right to vote comes the responsibility to inform yourself, and ensure that you use the vote and use it effectively and knowledgably. Let us at least be honest about one thing - what puts the 'average voter' off getting involved is generally a lack of interest. It's all too mundane for them.

I agree we have the responsibility to inform ourselves but the channels by which we do that have to change, we do live in a more information interactive society esp those of us who are online and take part in such sits as this one, but yet as we can see getting a hold of the right and accurate information online is stupidly hard, which is why threads like that can be good resources for all of us.

Powerhouse wrote: »

I have no difficulty with that at one level. It is part of human nature and there's more people like that out there than there is of the more active and engaged citizenry. What I do have a difficulty with is such people sticking their head above the parapet once every few years when politics - courtesy of election posters - has a higher public profile such that it comes under the radar of these people, and behaving as if the world suddenly owes them an explanation for everything.

Sorry I disagree, yes people should be more aware and active but the candidates and other elected officials do owe them explanations, they are meant to be working for us and representing us.

dodgyme

Gaspode wrote: »

But surely Leo was elected because of all the great work he was doing for the local community, and not because he spent a fortune on publicity.
.

what great work. can you please give examples? I have had contact with him on issues and got very little headway. I also went to a meeting where they thought I was a spy for another party. He is good on TV but not much of a presence in person.

By contrast I have contacted Joan Burton on occasion and she has been very responsive (and helped) to the community issues that I was on about. Also the labour party were the only ones to call to my door in 7 years. I am not a member of the labour party but I do like Joan and she is miles ahead of the other bunch for littlepace/ongar.

Thaedydal wrote: »

1) I agree we have the responsibility to inform ourselves but the channels by which we do that have to change, we do live in a more information interactive society esp those of us who are online and take part in such sits as this one, but yet as we can see getting a hold of the right and accurate information online is stupidly hard, which is why threads like that can be good resources for all of us.

2) Sorry I disagree, yes people should be more aware and active but the candidates and other elected officials do owe them explanations, they are meant to be working for us and representing us.

1) In other words unless you can get the informaton sitting at your PC you don't want to know?

2) Candidates visiting the homes of 50,000 people for one-on-one interviews with many people whose voting intentions will be decided in adavnce of anything the candidate says is not the way to provide 'explanations'.

Public meetings and media well-established fora for discussing such matters. Many of these have been advertised on lamp-posts in recent weeks.

Powerhouse wrote: »

1) In other words unless you can get the informaton sitting at your PC you don't want to know?

Nope but I should be able to access it here.

Powerhouse wrote: »

2) Candidates visiting the homes of 50,000 people for one-on-one interviews with many people whose voting intentions will be decided in adavnce of anything the candidate says is not the way to provide 'explanations'.

and what about those who are undecided?
Who have only recently moved into the area like a the residents who post in the barnwell/hansfield/ongar thread?
There are votes which should be courted, unless of course you'd rather see the % of people exercise their vote stay at shocking low levels and only be those who are very invested in the process, which is exclusionary.

Powerhouse wrote: »

Public meetings and media well-established fora for discussing such matters. Many of these have been advertised on lamp-posts in recent weeks.

and people have busy lives, work shift work, have kids and are not always free to attend such meetings, it should not be a case of if you cant' go to the meetings tough luck.

dodgyme wrote: »

By contrast I have contacted Joan Burton on occasion and she has been very responsive (and helped) to the community issues that I was on about. Also the labour party were the only ones to call to my door in 7 years. I am not a member of the labour party but I do like Joan and she is miles ahead of the other bunch for littlepace/ongar.

Both the sitting labour T.D. and co counselor have been really good over the last few years of being about and contactable I have to say ime, I have had 3 different addresses over the last 12 years of living in the d15 area and they have been at them all.

Joan Burton actually has an account here and has posted in this forum in the past but I don't know how active the account is currently.

PauloMN

ciaran76 wrote: »

For my area I haven't seen any poster for Gerry Lynam or Simon Herbert.

I am aware of Gerry as he has ben around for ages and I remember when he was an Independant canidate a few years ago. Simon Herbert is a new name to me.

I think Mulhuddart will be an intresting count.

Oh I just remembered there is another person running but I don' remember his name right now he is Independant in Mulhuddart. Will get back when I remember it.:o

Edit :I walked out to look at his poster...Ignatius Okafor

Was thinking there was someone missing from the list. This is the chap:
http://iggyokafor.blogspot.com/2009/05/ignatius-iggy-okafor-your-independent.html

Quite a few candidates. What's Mulhuddart, a 5 seater now?

dodgyme wrote: »

what great work. can you please give examples?

Sorry Dogyme, I was being quite facetious there, I have no idea what Leo has actually done, other than what I read in the community voice. Like most local politicians, he claims that anything positive done was all his own work.

In fairness though, most local politicians are contactable (in their 'clinic' or offices) and approachable, and will go out of their way to help as many people who came to them as they can.

Powerhouse wrote: »

Ah come on will you? The guy went from 380 votes in 1999 to 6,000 in 2007. It was an increase of epic proportions. It's a pity that you adduce a view to explain it and then when challenged decide hide behind retrospective irony, because there is an interesting treatise into human nature in that whole vote increase.

I am of course being ironic too.:rolleyes:

The point I made was that any single cause can be picked from the air and used to explain an effect. I could just as easily have picked something like the increase in the number of foreign nationals in the area, or any other random factoid as the reason for the sudden increase in Leo's popularity.
Essentially to say that the posters alone got him elected is equally as spurious, I'm sure there were many many more factors involved.
And more power to him; I admire anyone who can put themselves forward into the vipers nest of the political arena.

Gaspode wrote: »

The point I made was that any single cause can be picked from the air and used to explain an effect. I could just as easily have picked something like the increase in the number of foreign nationals in the area, or any other random factoid as the reason for the sudden increase in Leo's popularity.
Essentially to say that the posters alone got him elected is equally as spurious, I'm sure there were many many more factors involved.
And more power to him; I admire anyone who can put themselves forward into the vipers nest of the political arena.

Well to be fair now Leo doesn't have much time for them foreigners (ironically) Irish Times - He has something in common with the BNP

To be fair Leo did bombard the place with posters, leaflets etc etc, needless to say it all slowed down after we voted for him :rolleyes:

Cliste wrote: »

Well to be fair now Leo doesn't have much time for them foreigners (ironically) Irish Times - He has something in common with the BNP

To be fair Leo did bombard the place with posters, leaflets etc etc, needless to say it all slowed down after we voted for him :rolleyes:

LOL, nice recall. Sheer coincidence that I chose the foreign national thing though, honest!

Gaspode wrote: »

The point I made was that any single cause can be picked from the air and used to explain an effect. I could just as easily have picked something like the increase in the number of foreign nationals in the area, or any other random factoid as the reason for the sudden increase in Leo's popularity.
Essentially to say that the posters alone got him elected is equally as spurious, I'm sure there were many many more factors involved.
And more power to him; I admire anyone who can put themselves forward into the vipers nest of the political arena.

By this logic nothing can ever be explained as it all just moprhs into one big nebulous blob. Utter nonsense of course. The question of the number of foreign nationals that you posit is easily dismissed by any examination of the specific ballot boxes - Community Voice published this after the last election. Leo Varadkar did not do notably well in the areas where foreign nationals were registered.

You could come up with any amount of factoids I have no doubt. Only problem is that factoids are by definiton untrue, and they are far more demonstrably untrue than you seem to believe.

I imagine pretty much any spurious explanation you could come up with came be equally be summarily dismissed by actual evidence. It is also a fact that he spent multiples of the euros others spent on publicity and an established fact that candidates that are heavily publicised do better, in the same way that brands/products that are heavily advertised do better. This is not so easily dismissed by evidence.

Political advisors have studied these realites to the nth degree and are absolutely convinced about it based on all known evidence. That's why they allow fortunes to be spent on publicity.

And actually I don't say more power to Leo Varadkar. He holds no clinics and is training to be a GP while pulling €100k as a so-called full-time public represenative. So less power to him would be my view.

Normally of course I would agree with what you are saying. Who in their right mind would want to represent the Irish electorate? Just read some of the comments here.

Thaedydal wrote: »

and people have busy lives, work shift work, have kids and are not always free to attend such meetings, it should not be a case of if you cant' go to the meetings tough luck.

I have three kids and work only shift work and can do this. These are excuses. Let's call a spade and spade here; there are two types of people - those who are active, read newspapers, are interested in local issues, will inform themselves and believe in particiating in the democratic process even when there are no election posters up to awaken their interest, and those who aren't and won't. Everything else is just bluster.

Like I have said many times, it is not feasible not matter how lazy a voter is that all candidates turn up for a personal interview at their house. It's also be a cruel waste of time as such a person might well find an excuse (kids have to be collected, traffic is awful, blah blah) not to vote on the day too.

You forgot to deal with this comment you made - "I certainly understand the wanting to have candidates on my doorstep so I can ask the questions which are not being asked by the local papers."

What questions do you mean? For someone who claims to know very little about local issues/candidates/media coverage/public meetings, I would be surprised that you would even be aware of what pressing questions the local paper isn't asking.

Powerhouse wrote: »

By this logic nothing can ever be explained as it all just moprhs into one big nebulous blob. Utter nonsense of course.

No its not nonsense, go back and read it again. The point you're missing is that success in an election depends on many factors not simply one single one. Saying it is totally dependent on the amount of PR done just doesnt ring true. Sure PR helps, but the way you presented your original point about Leo it you appeared to be saying that publicity was the only reason he got elected. That's utter nonsense.

Powerhouse wrote: »

The question of the number of foreign nationals that you posit is easily dismissed by any examination of the specific ballot boxes - Community Voice published this after the last election. Leo Varadkar did not do notably well in the areas where foreign nationals were registered.

Maybe you didnt read what I said properly. I made that up off the top of my head, it was a spurious piece of crap to illustrate a point, nothing more. I hadnt meant to contradict the font of knowledge that is the Community Voice!

Powerhouse wrote: »

You could come up with any amount of factoids I have no doubt. Only problem is that factoids are by definiton untrue, and they are far more demonstrably untrue than you seem to believe.I imagine pretty much any spurious explanation you could come up with came be equally be summarily dismissed by actual evidence.

Ah, so you did read it.

Powerhouse wrote: »

It is also a fact that he spent multiples of the euros others spent on publicity and an established fact that candidates that are heavily publicised do better, in the same way that brands/products that are heavily advertised do better. This is not so easily dismissed by evidence.

Political advisors have studied these realites to the nth degree and are absolutely convinced about it based on all known evidence. That's why they allow fortunes to be spent on publicity.

Absolutely. I've no doubt publicity does help (and is one of the many things candidates need to do) to get people elected, but I still dont like my neighbourhood littered with posters. As I have said way back, I dont believe that I have consciously voted for someone becasue I remember seeing them on a poster.

Powerhouse wrote: »

And actually I don't say more power to Leo Varadkar. He holds no clinics and is training to be a GP while pulling €100k as a so-called full-time public represenative. So less power to him would be my view.

Fair enough, you dont like Leo. I've never met him or voted for him, so I'm indifferent to him. What i'm saying is that I dont envy anyone getting in politics.

Some people take it all far too seriously. Some couldn't give a sh1t. But I disagree with you in that I do feel there is a middle ground. Those who take enough interst to know who they want to vote for, and actually get out and do it.
I dont think everyone has to be totally immersed in local politics, and gen up on absolutely everything to do with it. People can decide for themselves how involved thay want to be.

Gaspode wrote: »

LOL, nice recall. Sheer coincidence that I chose the foreign national thing though, honest!

Haha! No bother - I just have no time for him. (Balance that with the fact that I have no time for any of them really...)

Powerhouse, I'm not really sure where you're going with this - I'm getting the feeling that the most appropriate solution to your point of view is that we should only let people who know whats going on vote (If it was my choice I'd just let me vote on things;) )

Gaspode wrote: »

1) No its not nonsense, go back and read it again. The point you're missing is that success in an election depends on many factors not simply one single one. Saying it is totally dependent on the amount of PR done just doesnt ring true. Sure PR helps, but the way you presented your original point about Leo it you appeared to be saying that publicity was the only reason he got elected. That's utter nonsense.

2) Fair enough, you dont like Leo. I've never met him or voted for him, so I'm indifferent to him. What i'm saying is that I dont envy anyone getting in politics.

3) Some people take it all far too seriously. Some couldn't give a sh1t. But I disagree with you in that I do feel there is a middle ground. Those who take enough interst to know who they want to vote for, and actually get out and do it. I dont think everyone has to be totally immersed in local politics, and gen up on absolutely everything to do with it. People can decide for themselves how involved thay want to be.

1) Here's what I actually wrote: Leo Varadkar spent an absolute fortune in the last election. He had posters up at the bus shelters for weeks on end which cost him thousands upon thousands. He spent far more than either of the other two elected candidates elected on posters. This was a lesson he learned the hard way. In the local election in 1999 Varadkar polled 380 votes. Five years later his vote increased by 1,200% when he polled the highest vote in the country and followed it up with nearly 7,000 votes in the General Election. He certainly saw the value in posters. Don't be codding yourself that this stuff doesn't matter.

As you can see I never used the word only - that's yours, not mine. You have accepted that PR is an important part of it all, which is exactly what I have said all along. Now you are trying to put words into my posts which were not used in order to change their message and and imply that I said something different so that you have an out.

2) Where did I say I didn't like him? I just would not say 'more power to him' as you do. I don't really respect one (important) aspect of what he is doing but that's quite a different matter from not liking him.

3) I'm not sure what you mean by people taking it 'far too seriously' - how serious is 'too serious'? But what you are saying here is no different from my categorisation i.e. that there are those who are informed and those who aren't and never the twain shall meet. I never said there was no variance in intensity or interest among those who are informed. In same way you'll have the 'don't give a sh1ts' who will whinge at election time because they don't get enough attention from candidates when they can't be arsed to inform themselves, and you'll have the 'don't give a sh1ts' who won't even know the election is on. Only for the pure sake of contradiction could you say there's a middle ground.

Cliste wrote: »

Powerhouse, I'm not really sure where you're going with this - I'm getting the feeling that the most appropriate solution to your point of view is that we should only let people who know whats going on vote (If it was my choice I'd just let me vote on things;) )

Well that's your solution, not mine. All I am saying is that people who normally have no interest/curiosity in what is happening locally should not whinge at election time and blather on about 'my vote' as if it was their virginity. If their vote is so precious, then let them make sure they are informed when they are using it without having to be spoon-fed.

There is a certain amount of self-selection that goes on of course as those who are out of touch with local issues and politicians positions on them might be less likely to vote. This is in all honesty quite a good thing as the less people vote on something other than the actual issues the better. But I don't think I'd go so far as the kind of social engineering yoiu suggest.