So Michael D IS running again!

alaimacerc · 13-07-2018 7:02pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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

Because it's the Iron Law of human nature that no-one ever willingly took a pay cut, even if they're well able to afford to, given their accumulated means?

FreudianSlippers · 13-07-2018 7:04pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Because it's the Iron Law of human nature that no-one ever willingly took a pay cut, even if they're well able to afford to, given their accumulated means?

It's fairly unrealistic, yeah. Now, the exception to that is a bunch of people that are ready to retire and will take the 7 years living large before retirement.

Creol1 · 13-07-2018 9:50pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

Anyone else think 50k is plenty?

Yes, I do, and I'm not even sure we should use the word salary; after all it is not a normal job, because all of his travel and living expenses are paid for (did you know the office of the President is exempt from Freedom of Information?) and he obviously lives in the Áras.

As such, "allowance" would be a more appropriate word I think.

According to this link, President Higgins seems to be one of the highest-paid world leaders, and that's after he took significant paycut: http://www.euronews.com/2016/11/17/world-leaders-what-are-their-wage-packets

The President of India, the world's largest democracy, also holds a largely ceremonial role and lives palatially but his actual salary is very low, $28,800, which I'm guessing is around €18,000 to €20,000. https://richestlifestyle.com/the-least-paid-presidents-in-the-world/

GarIT · 13-07-2018 10:17pm

Creol1 wrote: »

The President of India, the world's largest democracy, also holds a largely ceremonial role and lives palatially but his actual salary is very low, $28,800, which I'm guessing is around €18,000 to €20,000. https://richestlifestyle.com/the-least-paid-presidents-in-the-world/

It's a bit much comparing us to a country where our national income per person is 36 times higher than theirs, based on that payment our president should be on €887,781 when adjusted for gdp or cost of living.

Sam Russell · 13-07-2018 10:24pm

Talking about salary is just begrudgery.

1. Someone will get the job and the salary.

2. If Michael D does not get it, he will get a pension of about 50% of the salary.

3. I understand he currently forgoes his state pensions, which I assume he will begin taking them again.

So from a cost point of view, it is better if he is returned unopposed.

[

Creol1 · 14-07-2018 5:54am

Praetorian wrote: »

I think his presidency has been okay but not nearly as strong as the two ladies who came before him.

I have to say I found Mrs MacAleese's presidency decidedly bland, so much so that I have been amazed at the forcefulness of her commentary on the RCC in the past year or so.

In my view, the way in which Mary Robinson left office showed great disrespect for the office of President. I can take someone resigning out of principle as Ó Dálaigh did, but Mary Robinson left the presidency so she should take up another job. Being Head of State of a country isn't just a checkbox on a CV, or shouldn't be, and you don't simply hand in your notice whenever you please the way you might do with another job.

Creol1 · 14-07-2018 6:06am

GarIT wrote: »

It's a bit much comparing us to a country where our national income per person is 36 times higher than theirs, based on that payment our president should be on €887,781 when adjusted for gdp or cost of living.

Low national income hasn't traditionally stopped leaders of third world countries being some of the richest leaders in the world. I don't really understand the relevance of GDP level, because affordability is not the issue.

bobbyss · 14-07-2018 10:40am

In a campaign where would Higgins and indeed Craughwell get their finances from?

alaimacerc · 14-07-2018 11:26am

Creol1 wrote: »

I don't really understand the relevance of GDP level [...]

Have a think, it'll come to you.

Creol1 · 14-07-2018 11:47am

alaimacerc wrote: »

Have a think, it'll come to you.

You've overestimated my intelligence, because I have thought and nothing has come to me.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain to me (in clear, simple terms, of course), in recognition of my intellectual limitations?

alaimacerc · 14-07-2018 11:48am

Creol1 wrote: »

You've overestimated my intelligence, because I have thought and nothing has come to me.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain to me (in clear, simple terms, of course), in recognition of my intellectual limitations?

What's your theory as to what should determine the salary (with all due apologies for using normal language here) level?

Creol1 · 14-07-2018 12:07pm

bobbyss wrote: »

In a campaign where would Higgins and indeed Craughwell get their finances from?

I understand that (somewhat to my surprise) FG have committed not just to passive support for President Higgins, but will also be supporting the campaign financially. Given that Higgins' politics couldn't be further from FG's, I can only assume this is in the hope that some of his popularity will rub off on them; seeing as FG have lost every presidential election they ever contested, I'm sure they would also like to be able to be seen to be on the winning side for once.

FG's support will pressure FF to offer support as well and Labour, despite being much depleted since the last presidential election, will for obvious reasons not want to be seen to be coming up short in backing him.

Regarding Craughwell, financing won't be an issue. His charisma, vision and eloquence will see donations pour in from the people as they yearn for our country to chart a new course in history under President Craughwell.

alaimacerc · 14-07-2018 12:15pm

Creol1 wrote: »

Given that Higgins' politics couldn't be further from FG's, [...]

Clearly they could. FG have rarely been in government without Labour -- including during MDH's own ministerial career, notably. They may straddle either side of the lumpy middle on fiscal matters, but they generally find something to agree on, especially on "social" matters.

Regarding Craughwell, financing won't be an issue. His charisma, vision eloquence will see donations pour in from the people as they yearn for our country to chart a new course in history under President Craughwell.

And they said satire was dead.

alaimacerc · 14-07-2018 12:22pm

Creol1 wrote: »

FG's support will pressure FF to offer support as well and Labour, despite being much depleted since the last presidential election, will for obvious reasons not want to be seen to be coming up short in backing him.

I forgot to mention the cap. And it's per candidate, not per group. The parties can't just keep piling in indefinitely.

Nitrogan · 14-07-2018 12:32pm

I was disgusted at how SF interfered in the last Presidential election, looking back you'd wonder if they had outside help.

Micheal D Higgins has been a decent if unimpressive representative of Ireland since but a poor shadow of what Mary Robinson and McAleese were for us.

It's worrying that we don't have an obviously better candidate.

Pugzilla · 14-07-2018 12:47pm

Presidency should be scrapped entirely, it has no meaningful role.

alaimacerc · 14-07-2018 12:50pm

Pugzilla wrote: »

Presidency should be scrapped entirely, it has no meaningful role.

It has the role it (or a constitutional monarch) has in practically every similar parliamentary system. It plainly can't be "abolished entirely", its functions would have to be transferred to someone, or something, else.

For example, you could combine the roles of head of state, and head of government, as in the US. Which is working out unreservedly marvellously, I'm sure we can all agree.

smurgen · 14-07-2018 12:52pm

Have to say i heard an interview of michael d on rte and he came off terrible.moaning and very defensing with the voice sounding extra shrill.I'm kinda starting to see him in a different light.

Praetorian · 14-07-2018 5:22pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Of course if he knew it, he was deliberately lying. If he was unsure he shouldn't have said it. Saying it did win him votes, including mine. Unfortunately for me it puts him into the bracket of "typical politician", say what ever you have to get in, make campaign promises you may not intend to keep.

I don't think he's a bad guy at all. He was an okay president. You can see he absolutely loves the position. I think he has been caught out on a lie and I think it was deliberate. Only he or possibly those close to him would know for sure. You or I cannot be absolutely sure, but I have my opinion and I am entitled to it.

I hope the country can come up with a couple of good candidates to give him a proper race. I expect many people thought he was going to win by default. Now at least, he may have to answer some questions and his answers will be quite telling.

CrabRevolution · 14-07-2018 7:00pm

Praetorian wrote: »

Of course if he knew it, he was deliberately lying. If he was unsure he shouldn't have said it. Saying it did win him votes, including mine. Unfortunately for me it puts him into the bracket of "typical politician", say what ever you have to get in, make campaign promises you may not intend to keep.

I don't think he's a bad guy at all. He was an okay president. You can see he absolutely loves the position. I think he has been caught out on a lie and I think it was deliberate. Only he or possibly those close to him would know for sure. You or I cannot be absolutely sure, but I have my opinion and I am entitled to it.

I hope the country can come up with a couple of good candidates to give him a proper race. I expect many people thought he was going to win by default. Now at least, he may have to answer some questions and his answers will be quite telling.

The first question he'll be asked on the first debate/interview will be "You said you'd only serve one term, what changed?".

Michael D will say "I changed my mind. I feel honoured and energised and more capable for the role after 7 years on the job, and I feel I've a lot to contribute if the Irish people let me".

That's really all he has to say and it will put it to bed. How many times can he be asked the same question and give the same answer about his comments about serving 1 term?

People are really overestimating the mileage that will come of this.

GarIT · 14-07-2018 7:18pm

I'm of two minds about it. I can see how the presidency can seem a daunting responsibility and you couldn't imagine going for a second term but then when you're used to it and not in ill health a second term might seem more realistic when it comes to it. On the other hand he said what he said and maybe he should stick to his word and shouldn't go for a second term even if he changed his mind and wants to.

oscarBravo · 14-07-2018 8:26pm

GarIT wrote: »

On the other hand he said what he said and maybe he should stick to his word and shouldn't go for a second term even if he changed his mind and wants to.

I get that there are people who admire a dogged refusal to ever, ever change your mind about anything under any circumstances.

But I'll never understand it.

GarIT · 14-07-2018 10:00pm

Nitrogan wrote: »

I was disgusted at how SF interfered in the last Presidential election, looking back you'd wonder if they had outside help.

What leads you to believe it was them? I'm not saying it was or it wasn't, but RTE have apologised for saying the tweet came from McGuinness' team and that it came from a copycat account, it could be anyone or was there something to suggest it was SF?

eagle eye · 14-07-2018 10:29pm

I hope he runs again.
I view him as a great man, he did a lot of great things in the Human rights area over the years. I'd imagine that just the fact that he is President has been of benefit to this country globally because of how respected he is.
I say all of this despite my disdain for the Labour party of which he was a part for many years.

jmcc · 15-07-2018 6:39am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Odds are not probabilities.

Actually they are.

It will be very interesting to see how the odds on Higgins being releected shift now that FF/FG's "My Little Crony" strategy has been banjaxed by SF deciding to run a candidate and thus force an election. FF/FG seemed to have been hoping for a coronation so that they could save their money for a General Election.

FF is the real loser with this because SF can present itself as standing up for democracy and the younger voter demographics and it has done so based on Mary Lou McDonald's comments. FF has nowhere to run because it supported FG. FG can decide to run its own candidate as there's a meeting next week, I think. To date, it is only the FG parliamentary party that has decided to back Higgins. Gavin Duffy of the Dragons Den is also supposed to be interested in running according to this morning's Sunday Times.

If SF chooses a young(ish) candidate, then Higgins' age is going to become an issue. Don't be too surprised to see health issues appearing in this campaign.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc · 15-07-2018 6:55am

pixelburp wrote: »

Many comments in here in and around mould of 'lot of people...' or 'many folks voted...', etc etc - without backing up with any hard evidence beyond the contributors' own obvious bias: has there actually been any polls or stats compiled about this election - or indeed were there any about how the public voted in 2011?

There's always Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_presidential_election,_2011#Opinion_polls

It is possible to see where Gallagher was leading in the opinion polls until he was nobbled on the Frontline show.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_presidential_election,_2011#Results

Regards...jmcc

judeboy101 · 15-07-2018 6:56am

SF need a young, female, "clean candidate"(not from SF DNA). I can't for the life of me think who they can get.

flatty · 15-07-2018 7:30am

TomOnBoard wrote: »

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?

My statement is true. Why would you suggest it isn't?

flatty · 15-07-2018 7:31am

flatty wrote: »

TomOnBoard wrote: »

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?

My statement is true. Why would you suggest it isn't?

And option 3, just to spell it out to you, is that he stands by his word, and doesn't seek a second term.

GarIT · 15-07-2018 9:56am

jmcc wrote: »

Actually they are.

No they aren't. Probabilities must always equal to 1 when all mutually exclusive outcomes are added together. Odds are an analysis of a situation by the bookies to decide what rate would be favourable enough to make people play but unfavourable enough to make the bookies money + a loading factor to hedge against a bets winning or losing so the bookie isn't taking a large risk. If odds were probabilities every bookies would have the same odds.

Grab All Association · 15-07-2018 10:07am

Fair play to SF and independents putting forward candidates. This senile (bound to be) old gonk troll wanted another 7 years aboard the gravy train.

Apparently he he wasn't happy with the state car he was provided with and demanded a better model of Mercedes Benz.

GarIT · 15-07-2018 10:22am

Grab All Association wrote: »

Apparently he he wasn't happy with the state car he was provided with and demanded a better model of Mercedes Benz.

Apparently to who? The Gardaí decided the 12 year old presidential vehicle was unsafe for further use and replaced it. Even the sun says the president did not request a new vehicle.

dulpit · 15-07-2018 10:25am

I see FF have now announced (was in the Sunday Times according to Gavan Reilly) that their councillors will be free to nominate somebody through the local council route if they wish. So we might have a few candidates now...

jmcc · 15-07-2018 10:42am

GarIT wrote: »

No they aren't.

Odds are an expression of relative probabilities.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc · 15-07-2018 10:43am

dulpit wrote: »

I see FF have now announced (was in the Sunday Times according to Gavan Reilly) that their councillors will be free to nominate somebody through the local council route if they wish. So we might have a few candidates now...

The Greens have allowed their TDs and councillors to nominate too. This is quite bad for FF and for Micheal Martin's position as leader. He's a bit too eager to to the FG line.

Regards...jmcc

batgoat · 15-07-2018 11:01am

Praetorian wrote: »

Of course if he knew it, he was deliberately lying. If he was unsure he shouldn't have said it. Saying it did win him votes, including mine. Unfortunately for me it puts him into the bracket of "typical politician", say what ever you have to get in, make campaign promises you may not intend to keep.

I don't think he's a bad guy at all. He was an okay president. You can see he absolutely loves the position. I think he has been caught out on a lie and I think it was deliberate. Only he or possibly those close to him would know for sure. You or I cannot be absolutely sure, but I have my opinion and I am entitled to it.

I hope the country can come up with a couple of good candidates to give him a proper race. I expect many people thought he was going to win by default. Now at least, he may have to answer some questions and his answers will be quite telling.

I'm guessing due to age that he assumed he wouldn't have been physically or mentally fit for another term. However it's clear he is still fit for the role and likely has more to offer, imagine that influenced his decision more than the most boring lie ever.

Grab All Association wrote: »

Fair play to SF and independents putting forward candidates. This senile (bound to be) old gonk troll wanted another 7 years aboard the gravy train.

Apparently he he wasn't happy with the state car he was provided with and demanded a better model of Mercedes Benz.

Why is he bound to be senile? My father is the same age as him and in perfect health in terms of his brain. Honestly, that just read as incredibly nasty.

Grab All Association · 15-07-2018 11:02am

GarIT wrote: »

Apparently to who? The Gardaí decided the 12 year old presidential vehicle was unsafe for further use and replaced it. Even the sun says the president did not request a new vehicle.

The issue of the President's transport has been the subject of some controversy in recent days following the publication of a report which suggested that while he had taken delivery of a brand new Mercedes, he had sent it back with a demand that it be replaced with a "superior model" worth some €40,000 more.

ancapailldorcha · 15-07-2018 11:42am

Grab All Association wrote: »

Fair play to SF and independents putting forward candidates. This senile (bound to be) old gonk troll wanted another 7 years aboard the gravy train.

Apparently he he wasn't happy with the state car he was provided with and demanded a better model of Mercedes Benz.

Cut out the petty insults please.

CeilingFly · 15-07-2018 11:47am

Grab All Association wrote: »

Fair play to SF and independents putting forward candidates. This senile (bound to be) old gonk troll wanted another 7 years aboard the gravy train.

My mother is 86 and still works two days a week and drives about, travels frequently to Europe and USA to visit friends and family and is full of life.

Some day you'll understand that age is not the barrier young people mistakingly think it is.

I'll vote for whom I think will represent the office of president best. Age won't come into it.

Beechwoodspark · 15-07-2018 11:49am

Joan freeman was mentioned as someone who is planning a run for the park on RTÉ few mins ago.

And Gavin Duffy of dragons den is mentioned on one of the papers.

Squatter · 15-07-2018 11:51am

I see that another low profile president has just decided to run again after previously saying that he'd serve only one term.

"US President Donald Trump says he intends to run for re-election in the 2020 election.

The Mail on Sunday newspaper reported on an interview the president gave to Piers Morgan during his British visit on Friday.

When asked if he was going to run again, Trump said: "Well I fully intend to. It seems like everybody wants me to," the newspaper said.

Trump said he did not see any Democrat who could beat him. "I don't see anybody. I know them all and I don't see anybody."

Mickey Dee and Donald Trump, two spoofers made from the same mould!

pixelburp · 15-07-2018 12:04pm

When did Trump ever say he would only serve one term? The man says a lot of garbage but I've never read a single brainfart along those lines.

The insistence on some sort of ideological purity is a bit unreasonable, and just seems like a flimsy excuse for a genic bash-the-politician rant. A politican is being dishonest, get the mob!

Drawing moral equivalence between Higgins changing his mind about having another shot, and (say) a broken promise in an actual manifesto, is daft. Nick Clegg famously nuked the Liberal Democrats for a blatant LIE about tuition fees, that''s a clear poltical lie.

It feels like holding Higgins up to an unreasonable standard just for the purposes of bashing him is unfair. We've all changed our mind - often about career decisions too. Yet Higgins does it and out come the pitchforks.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-07-2018 12:06pm

judeboy101 wrote: »

SF need a young, female, "clean candidate"(not from SF DNA). I can't for the life of me think who they can get.

Despite the SF insistance that under 25's could have their first vote the candidate would have to be an Irish Citizen over 35.

And apart from the youth most of boxes have been ticked by the previous two presidents.

They can't play the gay child of an immigrant card either because Leo.

Besides what % of under 25's would vote, and of that what % would vote against "miggeldy higens".

Especially after the picture of him on a bike
https://i.imgur.com/Wk7x2.jpg

It would be interesting to see who they could put up without it ending up an opinion pole on SF.

The carrot is the election expenses they could claim and the oxygen of publicity.

A candidate who is elected or who gets more than a quarter of the quota will qualify to have their expenses reimbursed by the state up to €200,000.

So SF would need to get 1/8th of the vote , or hope the others empty their coffers more. In NI the referendum and two general elections have hit the smaller parties hard.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-07-2018 12:12pm

L1011 wrote: »

That'd be a 5 year term. Would need a VP system to handle deaths or retirements

That would just lead to a VP from the same party, so no independents.

The original system in the US was to have the looser be the VP. Intead they have a system where Mike Pence is next in line and a lot of minorities would view that as worse than Trump.

Squatter · 15-07-2018 12:26pm

pixelburp wrote: »

When did Trump ever say he would only serve one term? The man says a lot of garbage but I've never read a single brainfart along those lines.

The insistence on some sort of ideological purity is a bit unreasonable, and just seems like a flimsy excuse for a genic bash-the-politician rant. A politican is being dishonest, get the mob!

Drawing moral equivalence between Higgins changing his mind about having another shot, and (say) a broken promise in an actual manifesto, is daft. Nick Clegg famously nuked the Liberal Democrats for a blatant LIE about tuition fees, that''s a clear poltical lie.

It feels like holding Higgins up to an unreasonable standard just for the purposes of bashing him is unfair. We've all changed our mind - often about career decisions too. Yet Higgins does it and out come the pitchforks.

Re. Trump and one term, I saw it in one of his tweets during the election campaign, or thought that I had. If I'm wrong, then I apologise sincerely to Trump for associating him with Higgins's doublespeak!

As for Higgins; well my cynicism about his integrity isn't based on his self-serving pledge to be a one-term president, rather it goes back to his voting in favour of the criminal Reynolds/Ahern tax amnesty back in 1993. His pay-back was TnaG. That was the day when I realised that for MDH, staying in power was far more important than sticking to one's principles.

pixelburp · 15-07-2018 12:41pm

Squatter wrote: »

Re. Trump and one term, I saw it in one of his tweets during the election campaign, or thought that I had. If I'm wrong, then I apologise sincerely to Trump for associating him with Higgins's doublespeak!

As for Higgins; well my cynicism about his integrity isn't based on his self-serving pledge to be a one-term president, rather it goes back to his voting in favour of the criminal Reynolds/Ahern tax amnesty back in 1993. His pay-back was TnaG. That was the day when I realised that for MDH, staying in power was far more important than sticking to one's principles.

Ok, so it is an excuse to bash a politician off some flimsy pretext of simply changing their mind about running for a second term. A decision that every single one of us here has done. We've all changed our mind about something - and I daresay many about pretty major life decisions too.

Absolutely fair enough if you have clear past behaviour that colours your opinion of Higgins - that's perfectly valid reason to distrust any politician - but lead with that, not some snark about Trump and weaponising a simple career decision as proof - PROOF! - that Higgins is a bad egg.

This all feels like low hanging fruit against the more demonstrable, comparable actions of the actual government - not the occupier of a ceremonial role who has generally done about as good a job as a non-executive role can be.

Squatter · 15-07-2018 12:50pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Ok, so it is an excuse to bash a politician off some flimsy pretext of simply changing their mind about running for a second term. A decision that every single one of us here has done. We've all changed our mind about something - and I daresay many about pretty major life decisions too.

Absolutely fair enough if you have clear past behaviour that colours your opinion of Higgins - that's perfectly valid reason to distrust any politician - but lead with that, not some snark about Trump and weaponising a simple career decision as proof - PROOF! - that Higgins is a bad egg.

This all feels like low hanging fruit against the more demonstrable, comparable actions of the actual government - not the occupier of a ceremonial role who has generally done about as good a job as a non-executive role can be.

I suppose it all depends on whether or not one is happy to accept deceit from any Irish Constitutional office holder.

Because no matter how much you may equivocate about how nice he and his missus are is to small children, neighbouring monarchs and cats, the fact remains that many of us believe that he lied to us.

You are happy to forgive him, and that's your right, however I (and, it appears, quite a few others) aren't quite as tolerant of such an act.

And there I'll leave it because there's nothing else to be said.

eagle eye · 15-07-2018 3:24pm

flatty wrote:

And option 3, just to spell it out to you, is that he stands by his word, and doesn't seek a second term.

Did you ever change your mind in your life?

Hotblack Desiato · 15-07-2018 4:04pm

jmcc wrote: »

Actually they are.

Nope. Odds reflect the weight of money wagered on each outcome, as well as the probability of each outcome (and that's assuming the market is rational, people often bet based on nationalism or other emotions.) And a profit margin too, of course...

Hotblack Desiato · 15-07-2018 4:18pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Joan freeman was mentioned as someone who is planning a run for the park on RTfew mins ago.

Yeah with the Iona Institute's popularity at an all-time high, what could possibly go wrong :rolleyes:

And Gavin Duffy of dragons den is mentioned on one of the papers.

Jesus wept. The presidency is not a gig for z-list celebs, gospel singers, or no-mark senators fond of the sound of their own voice.

So Michael D IS running again!

Comments