So Michael D IS running again!

TomOnBoard · 12-07-2018 3:26pm

ligerdub wrote: »

And if he gets a 2nd term without an election?

There's going to be an election alright.

James Brown · 12-07-2018 3:34pm

ligerdub wrote: »

And if he gets a 2nd term without an election?

Well then he won't be able to vote for someone else?

realdanbreen · 12-07-2018 3:37pm

TomOnBoard wrote: »

There's going to be an election alright.

Oh yeah, who's going ?

oscarBravo · 12-07-2018 5:52pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

You're completely missing the point. It's not whether PP were seeking publicity or not it is that the Polls & stats were totally wrong!

No, they weren't. You need to figure out the difference between "the stats were wrong" and "I don't understand how statistics work".

alaimacerc · 12-07-2018 6:02pm

GarIT wrote: »

I'd also consider a strong republican if there were one, maybe Gerry, someone who can help push towards the possibility of a united Ireland referendum if Brexit goes to ****.

Seems SF are thinking more in terms of a cleanskin this time around. If they can get one that's eager to take the beating, which seems to be the problem for them.

Also sounds like you have notions for what the job entails that doesn't much resemble what the constitution says it actually is.

alaimacerc · 12-07-2018 6:10pm

eastwest wrote: »

On what basis?

Look at the spurious challenges to the results of various referenda. Some people think that churlish obstructionism is a basis all of its own.

James Brown · 12-07-2018 6:19pm

GarIT wrote: »

I voted for Gallagher as I thought we needed a businessman up front representing us to help us through the recession. This time around I think someone representing arts and culture like Higgins would be more appropriate. I'd also consider a strong republican if there were one, maybe Gerry, someone who can help push towards the possibility of a united Ireland referendum if Brexit goes to ****.

The Presidency is ultimately about representing the country. It's barely a political role.
Gallagher was on an ego trip and talking about it like he was going to make a business out of it. It's refreshing to have somebody representing the country who isn't pushing the hard sell of capitalism/business first. Gallagher would be a horrible president.
Adams would be a bad thing for a United Ireland. Sinn Fein need to move on from him and he certainly wouldn't be a help in that regard. I would have voted for him pre GFA when we needed such a spotlight. The nationalists are being heard now, be they Sinn Fein or not. Actually if there was a unionist candidate I'd probably vote for him/her in the pursuit of a united Ireland, if Michael D. wasn't running.

Hotblack Desiato · 12-07-2018 6:39pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

You're completely missing the point. It's not whether PP were seeking publicity or not it is that the Polls & stats were totally wrong!

Nope they predicted a close result, they were only slightly off, enough to swing the outcome but still only slightly off. Any poll has a margin of error.

realdanbreen · 13-07-2018 8:37am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nope they predicted a close result, they were only slightly off, enough to swing the outcome but still only slightly off. Any poll has a margin of error.

So on the day before the election when the bookies were offering Trump @ 10/3 and Hillary @ 1/4 they were working on polls that were only 'slightly off' ?

Creol1 · 13-07-2018 10:06am

Can anyone confirm whether or not President Higgins has referred any legislation to the Supreme Court? I remember he convened the Council of State over the X-Case legislation but in the end did not refer.

I'm not asking with a particular agenda, but interested to know.

alaimacerc · 13-07-2018 10:14am

Creol1 wrote: »

Can anyone confirm whether or not President Higgins has referred any legislation to the Supreme Court? I remember he convened the Council of State over the X-Case legislation but in the end did not refer.

Not that I'm aware of. Also convened the CoS over the International Protection Bill in 2015, also resulting in non-referral.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-07-2018 10:19am

realdanbreen wrote: »

So on the day before the election when the bookies were offering Trump @ 10/3 and Hillary @ 1/4 they were working on polls that were only 'slightly off' ?

Odds are not probabilities.

51:49 vs 49:51 IS only slightly off.

And Hillary won the popular vote.

This is irrelevant to this thread so I will not discuss it any further.

Creol1 · 13-07-2018 10:27am

dulpit wrote: »

Miggledy should/will win. But I do recognise there is an element of change needed. The problem is that with FF & FG backing him officially, and SF possibly nominating their own, it leave the likely contenders to be 1 independent (if they can get the votes from TDs/senators - I did read somewhre that there is talk of an informal primary between the likes of Craughwell/Ó Céidigh/etc to get 1 nomination), 1 SF and MDH. He'll romp home with that sort of competition.

It is important there is a vote though, if you turned 18 just after the last presidential election and we don't have one now the first time you get to vote for president is when you are 31. Which is a bit mad...

A lot of people are saying this but when we had the chance to open the presidency to 21 to 35 year olds in 2015 it was crushingly defeated.

I voted Yes and I hope people making the above point did likewise, because it's a tad hypocritical to place such importance on people under 35 having a vote in an election if you are opposed to their right to stand in said election.

Creol1 · 13-07-2018 10:49am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

For me how many terms didn't come into it, except that it would be regrettable if he didn't run again.

One of my local councilors won the seat by campaigning she'd no interest in becoming a TD and only wanted to become a Councillor to represent the community...she didn't even finish one term before she ran and became a TD. Fair enough, but I'm sure many voted thinking they were getting local representation, (she went on to back cancelling the only bus to her neighbourhood). That would be something to kick up about, but here you have the ambassadorial role of President and with both cases, the people will ultimately decide so I don't see the reason you seem so annoyed by this.

Higgins can be punished in the voting booth if anyone wants to show their ire.

To my mind, the real issue is politicians selling out on their principles when they get elected, the way Labour and SYRIZA did, which is more concerning to me than any one individual promise made in a campaign.

President Higgins, unlike many people, hasn't sold out after getting elected, and has used the position to articulate his left-wing beliefs, albeit not in a party political way, which would be inappropriate.

Moreover, while it is correct to say that President Higgins promised only to serve one term, this pledge wasn't quite as cast-iron as people make it out to be: towards the end of the campaign when his election seemed secure, he gave a more circumspect if immodest answer when asked about his pledge to serve only one term, remarking, "one can never underestimate the love of the people".

dulpit · 13-07-2018 11:28am

Creol1 wrote: »

A lot of people are saying this but when we had the chance to open the presidency to 21 to 35 year olds in 2015 it was crushingly defeated.

I voted Yes and I hope people making the above point did likewise, because it's a tad hypocritical to place such importance on people under 35 having a vote in an election if you are opposed to their right to stand in said election.

I voted yes too, and fair point (ish)

realdanbreen · 13-07-2018 11:43am

Creol1 wrote: »

: towards the end of the campaign when his election seemed secure, he gave a more circumspect if immodest answer when asked about his pledge to serve only one term, remarking, "one can never underestimate the love of the people".

Up to now I THOUGHT he was a cute hoor, now I'm CERTAIN he is one!

GarIT · 13-07-2018 11:46am

Creol1 wrote: »

A lot of people are saying this but when we had the chance to open the presidency to 21 to 35 year olds in 2015 it was crushingly defeated.

I voted Yes and I hope people making the above point did likewise, because it's a tad hypocritical to place such importance on people under 35 having a vote in an election if you are opposed to their right to stand in said election.

I think the people who voted no were just slow. I've heard so many arguments of "Most 21 year olds wouldn't be mature enough to represent the country", I had to explain to them that they weren't voting to elect a 21 year old, they were voting on whether or not to allow 21 year olds or even 34 year olds to be voted for, and if the particular person that ran for election wasn't the right person for it then don't vote for them but don't prevent them from running for election in the first place. And on top of that they had to get existing TDs or local councils to permit them to run for election so it's not like any random 21 year old could just walk into the election and be taken seriously in the debates etc.

It's incredibly undemocratic and infuriates me. Even 21 would have been undemocratic, if you can vote you should be allowed to be a candidate. This is a much more serious type of discrimination than the gay marriage referendum yet it doesn't get 1% of the attention. Not letting a certain group of people participate in democracy is much more serious than not letting some people marry, imagine if it was women that couldn't be president, that would be changed fairly quickly.

Sam Russell · 13-07-2018 11:53am

GarIT wrote: »

I think the people who voted no were just slow. I've heard so many arguments of "Most 21 year olds wouldn't be mature enough to represent the country", I had to explain to them that they weren't voting to elect a 21 year old, they were voting on whether or not to allow 21 year olds or even 34 year olds to be voted for, and if the particular person that ran for election wasn't the right person for it then don't vote for them but don't prevent them from running for election in the first place. And on top of that they had to get existing TDs or local councils to permit them to run for election so it's not like any random 21 year old could just walk into the election and be taken seriously in the debates etc.

It's incredibly undemocratic and infuriates me. Even 21 would have been undemocratic, if you can vote you should be allowed to be a candidate. This is a much more serious type of discrimination than the gay marriage referendum yet it doesn't get 1% of the attention. Not letting a certain group of people participate in democracy is much more serious than not letting some people marry, imagine if it was women that couldn't be president, that would be changed fairly quickly.

One thing about 21 year olds, is that eventually they will be 35 year olds. Women will always be women, so excluding them would certainly be wrong, just as excluding any defined group.

I cannot think of a single suitable candidate for President who is under 45 years. How could they have sufficient life experience to stand on their record?

I would be in favour of increasing the age to 45 rather than reducing it.

alaimacerc · 13-07-2018 12:21pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

One thing about 21 year olds, is that eventually they will be 35 year olds. Women will always be women, so excluding them would certainly be wrong, just as excluding any defined group.

Gender Recognition Act 2015, problem solved?

GarIT wrote: »

This is a much more serious type of discrimination than the gay marriage referendum yet it doesn't get 1% of the attention.

Silly claim. Because in actual fact, it's not even 1% as "serious a type of discrimination".

Creol1 · 13-07-2018 12:38pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

One thing about 21 year olds, is that eventually they will be 35 year olds. Women will always be women, so excluding them would certainly be wrong, just as excluding any defined group.

I cannot think of a single suitable candidate for President who is under 45 years. How could they have sufficient life experience to stand on their record?

I would be in favour of increasing the age to 45 rather than reducing it.

We have an extremely rigorous system in place to limit the chances that an unsuitable person would be nominated for the presidency.

Four local authorities or 20 Oireachtas members is a very high hurdle for prospective candidates to pass. Then the nominee actually has to win the election.

Are we really to have so little confidence in the ability of either our representatives or the electorate itself to decide who is suitable that we actually have to have further constitutional restrictions based on age?

GarIT · 13-07-2018 12:39pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

How could they have sufficient life experience to stand on their record?

If you feel they don't, then don't vote for them, don't exclude them from running. I'd be fairly likely to vote for someone without much relevant experience but I'd never consider not letting them run.

GarIT · 13-07-2018 12:40pm

Creol1 wrote: »

We have an extremely rigorous system in place to limit the chances that an unsuitable person would be nominated for the presidency.

Four local authorities or 20 Oireachtas members is a very high hurdle for prospective candidates to pass. Then the nominee actually has to win the election.

Are we really to have so little confidence in the ability of either our representatives or the electorate itself to decide who is suitable that we actually have to have further constitutional restrictions based on age?

What I was thinking, but you said it much better.

realdanbreen · 13-07-2018 12:44pm

Who ever gets elected should I believe as a matter of principle settle on a salary for the term of about 50K approx. As things stand they have a free mansion, free grub, free utilities, fuel, no expenditure of any kind. Unlike the rest of us they don't have bills or outgoings to pay from one end of the day to the other.
That would soon separate the genuine man/woman of the people from the wafflers.

alaimacerc · 13-07-2018 1:12pm

Creol1 wrote: »

We have an extremely rigorous system in place to limit the chances that an unsuitable person would be nominated for the presidency.

Perhaps you missed the extensive field of muppets last time?

Sam Russell · 13-07-2018 1:30pm

GarIT wrote: »

If you feel they don't, then don't vote for them, don't exclude them from running. I'd be fairly likely to vote for someone without much relevant experience but I'd never consider not letting them run.

Having a difficult job of getting a nomination is certainly a good start. A minimum age is only a temporary problem, as they just wait until they are old enough. It is possible that a pop idol type may be proposed and would devalue genuine candidates.

The last election should be an example for making it more difficult to stand. Having every possible candidate who could persuade four of the Ballygobackwards Councils in the country to nominate them, and then having their past dragged out for scrutiny by a rabid media, in the era of fake news, is something that reduces the status of the President to a reality TV formula.

It is not seemly for our Presidential hopefuls to be reduced to a reality TV contest.

GarIT · 13-07-2018 1:34pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Having a difficult job of getting a nomination is certainly a good start. A minimum age is only a temporary problem, as they just wait until they are old enough. It is possible that a pop idol type may be proposed and would devalue genuine candidates.

The last election should be an example for making it more difficult to stand. Having every possible candidate who could persuade four of the Ballygobackwards Councils in the country to nominate them, and then having their past dragged out for scrutiny by a rabid media, in the era of fake news, is something that reduces the status of the President to a reality TV formula.

It is not seemly for our Presidential hopefuls to be reduced to a reality TV contest.

Age won't change any of what you mentioned.

Sam Russell · 13-07-2018 1:39pm

GarIT wrote: »

Age won't change any of what you mentioned.

It widens the possible field, and would include sports stars, TV 'personalities', etc.

Having good name recognition increases the chances of being considered, whether suitable or not.

alaimacerc · 13-07-2018 1:43pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The last election should be an example for making it more difficult to stand. Having every possible candidate who could persuade four of the Ballygobackwards Councils in the country to nominate them, and then having their past dragged out for scrutiny by a rabid media, in the era of fake news, is something that reduces the status of the President to a reality TV formula.

None of them even withing roaring distance of ever seeing 45, much less 35, ever again, though. So a bit of a tangent from that issue -- unless it's to illustrate the point that some 34yo's would surely be better candidates than some of that shower.

I'd not be at all dismayed if the nomination requirements were tightened up a bit. In theory at present you could have a field of 19. 19! The horror, the horror...

GarIT · 13-07-2018 2:07pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

It widens the possible field, and would include sports stars, TV 'personalities', etc.

As you pointed out they can just wait, like you suggest for everyone else in the current situation.

TomOnBoard · 13-07-2018 2:09pm

Creol1 wrote: »

We have an extremely rigorous system in place to limit the chances that an unsuitable person would be nominated for the presidency.

Four local authorities or 20 Oireachtas members is a very high hurdle for prospective candidates to pass. Then the nominee actually has to win the election.

Are we really to have so little confidence in the ability of either our representatives or the electorate itself to decide who is suitable that we actually have to have further constitutional restrictions based on age?

Hope to fcuk the rigorous system doesn't exclude this kind gentleman.

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/rural-life/you-never-see-ordinary-joe-soaps-getting-into-high-office-roscommon-farmer-wants-to-be-president-37114410.html

realdanbreen · 13-07-2018 2:09pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

Who ever gets elected should I believe as a matter of principle settle on a salary for the term of about 50K approx. As things stand they have a free mansion, free grub, free utilities, fuel, no expenditure of any kind. Unlike the rest of us they don't have bills or outgoings to pay from one end of the day to the other.
That would soon separate the genuine man/woman of the people from the wafflers.

Anyone else think 50k is plenty?

CircleofLife · 13-07-2018 2:11pm

He tore Mitt Romney to pieces in a radio debate.

dulpit · 13-07-2018 2:16pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

Anyone else think 50k is plenty?

No. They are the head of state, they represent the nation. Give them a decent salary. In the grand scheme of things a 50K salary or a 250K salary has no real bearing on the overall cost of the presidency.

pawdee · 13-07-2018 2:18pm

I'd vote for this lad:

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/rural-life/you-never-see-ordinary-joe-soaps-getting-into-high-office-roscommon-farmer-wants-to-be-president-37114410.html

He looks like a fella on a Led Zeppelin album cover. The guy carrying the big bunch of sticks on his back?

Sean Gallagher looks like he should be wearing a black bomber jacket and an earpiece. He looks more suited to nightclub security than high office. Just a couple of observations but I'll probably receive another warning.

realdanbreen · 13-07-2018 2:51pm

dulpit wrote: »

No. They are the head of state, they represent the nation. Give them a decent salary. In the grand scheme of things a 50K salary or a 250K salary has no real bearing on the overall cost of the presidency.

Fair enough that's your opinion. I believe a 50-60k salary would separate the genuine people who care from the Grá mo chroí wafflers and pontificators.

Kermit.de.frog · 13-07-2018 3:11pm

I think Higgins has done a reasonable job for what the job is.

However personally I think he is too old and should step away at this point. I also don't think it would be good to return to the days of the imagery of the head of state being some old folks home for retirement.

I never agreed with the nonsense that there should be no election. This is suppose to be a democracy. I don't see for what reason so many thought Higgins should just be given the job again.

He should absolutely have to contest and if people vote for him then fair enough.

flatty · 13-07-2018 4:12pm

He stood up and announced, for the sole reason that he felt it gave him a better chance of being elected, that he categorically, if elected, would not seek a second term. If he now will not honour that absolutely unequivocal statement, he is exactly the kind of two faced politician who should be denied Office. He was neither a bad nor a good president, just average as expected. Seven years is plenty. Someone else should be given a turn.

flatty · 13-07-2018 4:14pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

realdanbreen wrote: »

Who ever gets elected should I believe as a matter of principle settle on a salary for the term of about 50K approx. As things stand they have a free mansion, free grub, free utilities, fuel, no expenditure of any kind. Unlike the rest of us they don't have bills or outgoings to pay from one end of the day to the other.
That would soon separate the genuine man/woman of the people from the wafflers.

Anyone else think 50k is plenty?

Me

GarIT · 13-07-2018 4:40pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

Anyone else think 50k is plenty?

I think it depends on where you're coming from, where I live most people would consider that being rich. But a doctor on 300k or lawyer, account or software engineer would think it's absolutely tiny.

L1011 · 13-07-2018 4:49pm

If you want to ensure that only personally wealthy people can ever take the job, sure.

TomOnBoard · 13-07-2018 4:50pm

flatty wrote: »

He stood up and announced, for the sole reason that he felt it gave him a better chance of being elected, that he categorically, if elected, would not seek a second term. If he now will not honour that absolutely unequivocal statement, he is exactly the kind of two faced politician who should be denied Office. He was neither a bad nor a good president, just average as expected. Seven years is plenty. Someone else should be given a turn.

Denied office??

Do you mean

1. the electorate should consider that he had said ( if your statement is true) that " he categorically, if elected, would not seek a second term" during the process of making up their minds as to whether they would vote for him in a fair and free election, OR

2. he should be prevented from being allowed to run as a candidate?

13-07-2018 5:58pm

He lives rent free in the aras, he gets driven around by a driver in a car he doesn't have to spend a penny on.
He travels the world paid for by the tax payer.
I'm nor begrudging him any of it, but his salary on top of all that, is very high. 50k would be enough

Pugzilla · 13-07-2018 6:05pm

GarIT wrote: »

I think it depends on where you're coming from, where I live most people would consider that being rich.

Where are you from? Genuine question. Can't think of anywhere in Ireland where a 50k income is rich.

GarIT · 13-07-2018 6:08pm

Pugzilla wrote: »

Where are you from? Genuine question. Can't think of anywhere in Ireland where a 50k income is rich.

Tallaght, Springfield. 30k and not having to work with the general public would be considered well off here, almost everyone works in retail or a trade.

Praetorian · 13-07-2018 6:15pm

The lie about the 2nd term annoys me quite a lot personally. I voted for him the first time as I found him quite likable and I thought it was great that he was only going to do one term. I cannot get over a lie of this magnitude. There is no other word for it.

I think his presidency has been okay but not nearly as strong as the two ladies who came before him. I hope the country can come up with a better more honest candidate.

eagle eye · 13-07-2018 6:19pm

So nobody can change their mind anymore?

Like maybe he is proud of how well he has done in the job and feels like he should stay on.
It's quite possible that a lot of people have urged him to stay on.
I think he should go again, he is a very good man.

alaimacerc · 13-07-2018 6:20pm

Praetorian wrote: »

The lie about the 2nd term annoys me quite a lot personally. I voted for him the first time as I found him quite likable and I thought it was great that he was only going to do one term. I cannot get over a lie of this magnitude. There is no other word for it.

I guess "change of mind" is technically a phrase.

I really don't see why this is a big deal for people. Is it the mere fact of the flip-flop? Is it the length of time in office? A deep-felt need to get a vote on it every seven years?

oscarBravo · 13-07-2018 6:38pm

Praetorian wrote: »

I cannot get over a lie of this magnitude. There is no other word for it.

So it's your considered opinion that, at the time he said he only intended to seek a single term, he knew that to be untrue?

Because that would be a lie. If he believed it to be true at the time, it wasn't a lie.

This bizarre idea that changing one's mind is the One True Unforgivable Sin needs to die in a fire.

FreudianSlippers · 13-07-2018 6:57pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

Fair enough that's your opinion. I believe a 50-60k salary would separate the genuine people who care from the Grá mo chroí wafflers and pontificators.

No, it just closes off the Presidency to anyone with a good job.

FreudianSlippers · 13-07-2018 6:59pm

Praetorian wrote: »

The lie about the 2nd term annoys me quite a lot personally. I voted for him the first time as I found him quite likable and I thought it was great that he was only going to do one term. I cannot get over a lie of this magnitude. There is no other word for it.

I think his presidency has been okay but not nearly as strong as the two ladies who came before him. I hope the country can come up with a better more honest candidate.

I'm sure you've said nothing 7 years ago that you've changed your mind about.

So Michael D IS running again!

Comments