So, the Leaders Debate (II) is Over, who won

jmayo · 15-02-2011 10:23AM

RachaelVO wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Didn't your parents ever tell you, "it is the taking part that matters"

johngalway wrote: »

Thought Enda done well, despite all the haters having their voodoo dolls out for him tonight.

Fecks sake listening to media and even worse reading some of the rubbish on the web you would swear Kenny was some moron unable to string 2 words together.

Headshot wrote: »

Can I ask one of the 13 people who voted for FF, what the **** are you thinking

All he did during the show was bash adams

They just remembered all the little kickbacks the party have given them.:rolleyes:

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well surmised.

One thing I thought ws interesting when the lady asked who would suffer.
Kennys first sentence was "we all will".

Now please please do not be trying to convince people to have ff as primary opposition even if the others are economic lunatics

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ehh it is the ammont of shinners that are on the web.

Every party's supporters will of course think their own won.
On the 11th hour show on RTE each party's analyst were claiming their guy won it.

VampiricPadraig wrote: »

Daww...Just for that...Gerry!
EDIT: Look at Pat Kenny...lol

Just look at the body language between martin and adams. :rolleyes:

InigoMontoya · 15-02-2011 10:30AM

To be honest I thought it was a poor format, and also a generally poor standard from the politicians. To give them a slight benefit of the doubt, the limited time for each answer meant that there was no chance of them either explaining a detailed position or (perhaps more likely) having their policies found out.

I would say that Kenny probably won by not losing, in that many people seemed to expect him to be badly shown up, which he wasn't. Some signs that he may be more vulnerable in the 3-way debate though, as both Gilmore and Martin are more skilful debaters.

That said, Gilmore is struggling a bit. Not very convincing last night, has definitely been losing momentum recently.

Martin is doing quite well considering the baggage of being a long-standing member of a (now) largely-despised government. Again, that may be more of a weakness when there is more time and opportunity for engaging with one another.

Gormley spoke well, but there was a fatalistic, defeated air about him that will hardly attract voters.

Adams comes across as having more rhetoric than knowledge or viable solutions.

But these comments are all relative. The 5 of them as our political elite is not exactly an inspiring sight.

scr123 · 15-02-2011 10:30AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Internet message boards polls are meaningless as they are dominated by party hacks. SF and FG in every poll I have seen are out in numbers and come out best with results that are farfetched in comparison with media polls.
I didnt see a winner last night, the lack of individual grilling allowed the 5 leaders to quote manifesto without challenge

Pete_Cavan · 15-02-2011 10:37AM

Kenny won, not that he tore the others to shreds but because he did not do any damage to himself or FG. They will not lose votes because of last night which is a victory for them. That was the best they could hope for and have come out the other side unscathed.

Adams was crap. Shouting populist nonsense, promising everything with absolutely no clue where he was going to get the money for any of it. The bottomless sack of money NPRF is going to pay for the budget deficit for the next six years, fund a €7bn stimulus package and reform the health service which will be free for everyone and all without the USC and all cuts reversed! We have all known he had no clue about economics for a long time but the inability to do basic addition and subtraction is shocking.

Martin and Gormleys performances (although surprisingly impressive in the case of the latter) is irrelevant.

I thought Gilmore would do more. He didnt show himself to be any better than Kenny. Having a go at Kenny the way he did might put some people off voting Labour because he will need FG to form a government and he only highlighted the difficulties which that would bring.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 15-02-2011 10:46AM

Enda did well for Enda but you still saw his nervousness when others talked over him. Though talking over people is one of my main gripes with Michael Martin so not something I care about.

I thought Gormley did very well and Gilmore second. Adams probably appealed to some people but was more populist than pragmatic so didn't impress me.

I'm glad Martin took a roasting about being in government the last 14 years as he seemed to be building momentum.

Of course like all posters I'm biased and seeing the best in candidates I want to do well. Maybe some people thought Martin did great.

gandalf · 15-02-2011 10:46AM

There needs to be a none of the above option because I feel these so called leaders debates are about as useful as a chocolate teapot at getting to the meat and bones of each parties policies.

Maybe have a format with one leader facing an intelligent audience asking questions so they do not have the release valve of one of the other so called leaders jumping in to try and get some of the limelight and detracting from the topic at hand.

I really despair for politics in this country if people base their choice on who to vote for with these pantomime performances.

paky · 15-02-2011 10:48AM

thought it was quite funny when michael martin attacked gerry adams on the issue of fraud when him and his party stole over 40 billion euro from the tax payer and gave it to the banks. pure and utter scum. cant wait to see the day when they're all unemployed

Bottle_of_Smoke · 15-02-2011 10:48AM

InigoMontoya wrote: »

Gormley spoke well, but there was a fatalistic, defeated air about him that will hardly attract voters.

Agree. Its actually why he impressed me so much. I saw it more as a sign of realism and rationality which to me is what we need in the next government.

irishh_bob · 15-02-2011 10:48AM

enda kenny did very well considering how little was expected of him, adams was impressive also , i thought michael martin did reasonabley well too as did john gormley , gilmroe was by far the least impressive

Pete_Cavan · 15-02-2011 10:52AM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Agree. Its actually why he impressed me so much. I saw it more as a sign of realism and rationality which to me is what we need in the next government.

Yes, last night made me think a FG-Greens coalition might be good for the country. Certainly better than FG-Labour. It is probably irrelevant though as the Greens are unlikely to get enough seats to be of any use to FG.

KELTICKNIGHTT · 15-02-2011 10:54AM

party hacks on these boards i think posting in these threads

InigoMontoya · 15-02-2011 11:04AM

A minor point - on Newstalk this morning some commentator mentioned Kenny's answer to the "who's going to suffer?" question (he said "everyone is going to suffer, blah, blah, 5 point plan!") as being "close to a major gaff".

I thought it was at least a bit more honest than most of the other answers, and a plus point for Kenny. Opinions?

sgb · 15-02-2011 11:09AM

I'm going to vote for the bloke with the red tie

gandalf · 15-02-2011 11:10AM

InigoMontoya wrote: »

A minor point - on Newstalk this morning some commentator mentioned Kenny's answer to the "who's going to suffer?" question (he said "everyone is going to suffer, blah, blah, 5 point plan!") as being "close to a major gaff".

I thought it was at least a bit more honest than most of the other answers, and a plus point for Kenny. Opinions?

Of course it is. He and Gormley were honest that everyone is going to suffer. We have not seen the worst yet people. Anyone who is saying that someone else will be made pay like the "rich" is lying to you.

the_syco · 15-02-2011 11:11AM

Kenny did a decent job at speaking, and delivered his message clearly enough.

Adams did an excellent job at speaking, and promised the silver bullet, to deny the IMF, and to pay for all this, and more, from a limited fund.

Everyone attacked him on this.

Mental Mickey · 15-02-2011 11:14AM

gandalf wrote: »

There needs to be a none of the above option because I feel these so called leaders debates are about as useful as a chocolate teapot at getting to the meat and bones of each parties policies.

Maybe have a format with one leader facing an intelligent audience asking questions so they do not have the release valve of one of the other so called leaders jumping in to try and get some of the limelight and detracting from the topic at hand.

I really despair for politics in this country if people base their choice on who to vote for with these pantomime performances.

Completely agree. And someone else other than Pat The Plank should be the chair? Maybe Bryan Dobson?

raymon · 15-02-2011 11:16AM

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

party hacks on these boards i think posting in these threads

who is a party hack??

KELTICKNIGHTT · 15-02-2011 11:17AM

sgb wrote: »

I'm going to vote for the bloke with the red tie

think there was a lot of red ties there:D

scargill · 15-02-2011 11:18AM

Michael Martin this morning said that he would continue to attack Gerry Adams at every oppurtinuity during the election if Gerry spoke about fraud or corruption during the election campaign.

He said
"There is a fundamental problem for Gerry when he continues to deny his membership of the IRA because every time he talks in this debate during the election about honesty and so on, (and saying such things as 'we must be up front, we must be transparent'), it jars very much with his own position about the past."

Now Michael.....the same could be said for you!!

This is what I heard when I heard him say the above !!

"There is a fundamental problem for Michael when he continues to deny his membership of Fianna Fail because every time he talks in this debate during the election about honesty and so on, (and saying such things as 'we must be up front, we must be transparent'), it jars very much with his own position about the past."

KELTICKNIGHTT · 15-02-2011 11:18AM

non of the above a nice idea as option in pole

KELTICKNIGHTT · 15-02-2011 11:20AM

scargill wrote: »

Michael Martin this morning said that he would continue to attack Gerry Adams at every oppurtinuity during the election if Gerry spoke about fraud or corruption during the election campaign.

He said
"There is a fundamental problem for Gerry when he continues to deny his membership of the IRA because every time he talks in this debate during the election about honesty and so on, (and saying such things as 'we must be up front, we must be transparent'), it jars very much with his own position about the past."

Now Michael.....the same could be said for you!!

This is what I heard when I heard him say the above !!

"There is a fundamental problem for Michael when he continues to deny his membership of Fianna Fail because every time he talks in this debate during the election about honesty and so on, (and saying such things as 'we must be up front, we must be transparent'), it jars very much with his own position about the past."

what are you talking about ?

KELTICKNIGHTT · 15-02-2011 11:21AM

raymon wrote: »

who is a party hack??

was posted in couple of threads about party hacks,who,your guess is as good as mine but could guess

gandalf · 15-02-2011 11:22AM

Mental Mickey wrote: »

Completely agree. And someone else other than Pat The Plank should be the chair? Maybe Bryan Dobson?

No Dobson lost all creditability with Bertie Aherns Crying Game show.

I'd suggest hiring in Jeremy Paxman to chair, he would chew every one of our lightweight leaders up totally without breaking into a sweat.

scargill · 15-02-2011 11:26AM

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

what are you talking about ?

sorry - not sure what you mean?

I'm talking about how MM obviously had it in for GA last night (FF are fighting for 3rd place with SF afterall?).

And I'm talking about the brass neck of MM.

KELTICKNIGHTT · 15-02-2011 11:33AM

scargill wrote: »

sorry - not sure what you mean?

I'm talking about how MM obviously had it in for GA last night (FF are fighting for 3rd place with SF afterall?).

And I'm talking about the brass neck of MM.

ok

gandalf · 15-02-2011 11:37AM

scargill wrote: »

sorry - not sure what you mean?

I'm talking about how MM obviously had it in for GA last night (FF are fighting for 3rd place with SF afterall?).

And I'm talking about the brass neck of MM.

Of course MM is going after SF they are taking the support of the more republican members of FF and if SF gain footholds in those locations then they will probably not see those members come back and those seats will be lost.

With regard to those FF supporters who will be voting for FG, MM and the mandarins know that this is a protest vote and they will be back at the next GE so they are not seen as critical.

Magi11 · 15-02-2011 11:37AM

RachaelVO wrote: »

I disagree! Someone has to be able to win a discussion, and show, in this instance who will represent the country on the international stage, and who can ensure that in negotiations (whether EU/IMF or otherwise), can hold their own!

Someone should be able to win a discussion but this wasn't a discussion and it wasn't a debate. It was a series of scripted soundbites with about 30 seconds spontaneity in the whole thing. Then you get people on here who have already made up their minds, calling their guy the winner. Also if you are a floating voter then there are more substantial tests for a party than if their leader can memorise 10 minutes of talking points and then repeat a selected one whenever possible.
The only interesting debate in the history of television between "leaders" was Series 7 of The West Wing!!!

Mental Mickey · 15-02-2011 11:41AM

Magi11 wrote: »

Someone should be able to win a discussion but this wasn't a discussion and it wasn't a debate. It was a series of scripted soundbites with about 30 seconds spontaneity in the whole thing. Then you get people on here who have already made up their minds, calling their guy the winner. Also if you are a floating voter then there are more substantial tests for a party than if their leader can memorise 10 minutes of talking points and then repeat a selected one whenever possible. The only interesting debate in the history of television between "leaders" was Series 7 of The West Wing!!!

This is why I hate these programmes. The political equivalent of the Eurovision Song Contest.

swiss · 15-02-2011 11:43AM

I saw a tweet on the eleventh hour directly after the debate that I thought was apropos. I can't remember the text verbatim but the point was effectively that for the most part the debates don't really change peoples minds and that most people use these debates to reinforce their own biases.

I thought it was probably correct in my instance, because although I watched the debate with some interest, I have more or less made up my mind who I'm voting for (although my later preferences are up for grabs). I will say that Gormley did quite a lot better than I expected, Enda held up which I guess you could call a victory given the low expectations, Martin was more combative than I thought he would be - I guess he felt he had nothing to lose, and Adams kept playing the Republican card, pandering to his base but not doing anything to expand it, which I would consider poor politics. I don't think Gilmore did badly but it was also a fairly unremarkable performance, I certainly wasn't inspired to vote Labour on the back of it but perhaps thats just me.

RetroBate · 15-02-2011 11:46AM

What they said I'd heard before and it didn't sound any more convincing.

All were men.
All wore ties.
All wore suits.

Why do 99% of male politicians wear suits and ties?

Uniformity of dress indicates an unwillingness to challenge conventions and accepted truths.

Scary.

So, the Leaders Debate (II) is Over, who won

Comments