Presidential Election 2018 [Archive] - Page 3

Eminence Grise

25/10/2018, 2:02 PM

My big takeaway from this is that the constitution should be amended to abolish the right of councils to nominate candidates to the presidency..

If push came to shove, there's a good chance the electorate would vote to retain the status quo since the alternative would be to leave nominations in the gift of the Oireachtas, and that would make a stitch-up between the main parties the norm.

I suspect we'll see a tightening up of the process, after Bunty-whatever-her-real-name is made complete idiots out of Dublin City Council. There's a good chance that prospective candidates will be more soundly vetted, and that might include a vote of the council on each applicant's merits before invitations to speak are issued.

At the end of the day don't forget that while they nominated four political pygmies, they did do their job in not nominating Gemma O'Doherty.

Mr A

25/10/2018, 2:38 PM

Bunty was probably the second best prospective candidate after MDH.

NeverFeltBetter

26/10/2018, 8:50 AM

I would say candidates applying through the council route should also be nominated with a sufficient quorum of voting councilors, since there was so many abstentions at times. I'd also love for there to be a set date for them all to vote, rather than the strung-out clownshow this years turned into, but I'm not sure how practical that would be to implement.

Regards the Presidency, I'd love to see it beefed up with a proper veto power (where a sufficiently high legislative majority could over-rule it) and a reduced term length. It's the only position we have elected by the entirety of the electorate after all, it should have powers that reflects that. You can count the amount of notable Presidential incidents that involve actual powers on one hand.

NeverFeltBetter

26/10/2018, 9:09 PM

Both exit polls have Higgins winning at a canter, with Casey a distant second and the rest in single digits. The Blasphemy ref will pass easily.

Casey's late surge will generate a lot of talk, proof that notoriety is better than blandness in these kind of races. I note from social media that a lot of the anti-SSM/Love Both crowd rowed in behind him, though I don't even know if Casey identifies with those causes, he just annoyed left-leaning types. A real basket of deplorables situation.

The less than brilliant turnout also shows that talk of voter engagement being boosted after the last few referendums might be a tad overblown.

backstothewall

26/10/2018, 10:19 PM

Miggeldy will be going to bed tonight knowing he is on course to be declared the most popular politician in the history of the state tomorrow and will possibly be the first Irish man or woman in history to receive over a million votes.

Casey will be a story for a day or 2. He goes nowhere in a STV election and he's smart enough to know it. I'd speculate that he wouldn't even have managed 3nd place if there had been multiple hypothetical seats available by the time eliminations and MDHs massive surplus had come into play.

Casey will be chip wrappers by Wednesday. MDH goes into the history books.

tetsujin1979

26/10/2018, 11:43 PM

Real ale Madrid

26/10/2018, 11:53 PM

I'd be a little worried. Casey was incoherent and disorganized, if he hit the message a week earlier and made it a 2 horse race before the main debates it could have been closer.

pineapple stu

27/10/2018, 8:37 AM

few commentators on twitter saying Casey's surge to 20% is a sign of the underlying racism in the country, and his demonising of travellers was the dogwhistle the right needed needed to hear* to get them out to vote

*I know you can't hear dogwhistles, but you know what I mean
I think that's harsh. Part of the issue was how PC things have become lately; you can't criticise anyone without being labelled racist. Casey made an entirely fair point on travellers - there is no reason for them to have special status in Ireland - but instead of opening a debate on the matter, you had Varadkar simply telling him to shut up and Freeman coming out demanding an apology (the go-to "argument" of the current decade) and saying that travellers' problems were society's fault, which is utterly daft. It was to an extent of a corollary point he made about Ireland being over-the-top in terms of welfare (a point a recent Government report kind of agrees with (https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/report-gives-stark-warning-were-a-welfare-nation-862009.html)), although that didn't get as much traction on either side of the fence.

Here's the original comments (https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/presidential-election/listen-presidential-candidate-peter-casey-sparks-outrage-with-his-racist-remarks-on-travellers-37428508.html) btw, for clarity. I think they're entirely valid. The case for the defence is that they've been fighting for rights to education (primarily) for decades; Casey said they have the right to free education (and don't take it up; is it 2% go through to Leaving Cert?). The argument was made that they were racially discriminated because entire villages shut down when there was a wedding or a funeral on; I don't know how accurate that is, but it doesn't explore why that might be the case (Casey touches on it in his reply, but I think dismisses the real reason - fist-fights and arrests - as too obvious).

Yet rather than address these points, Varadkar tells him to shut up, and Freeman says they're all society's fault. I think that's sparked a good chunk of the vote.

It's part of a broader issue there days where people park their kids in a car/police station for a day to assert their right to a free house, or get another few months to make a payment on a mortgage they haven't touched in years, or where people can rack up double- and treble-figure criminal conviction numbers and be given another chance because sure haven't they a young child - and any criticism of this is simply dismissed as some kind of bigotry or, as you've suggested, racism or a play to the masses, instead of a genuine point for debate.

I think there's a growing frustration about all that, so a protest vote was always likely for whoever said it first. Not saying that's the sole reason for the relatively high Casey vote, but I think it is one which you haven't mentioned.

(Disclaimer - I voted for Michael D, and I agree the travellers comments meant that the Casey campaign became one topic, while other stuff - his daft comments about Michael D's dogs - were overlooked)

Real ale Madrid

27/10/2018, 9:12 AM

His comments were valid? Nonsense. It's not PC to label racists as racist.

pineapple stu

27/10/2018, 9:21 AM

Have you got any sort of argument to go along with that?

I've given a detailed one on my side. Dismissing that as "nonsense" is exactly why Casey got so many votes

Real ale Madrid

27/10/2018, 9:39 AM

You've given no argument why his comments were valid. None. If you can tell me why Travellers don't deserve recognition of thier ethnicity then I'll be happy to debate it. Everything else follows on from that.

pineapple stu

27/10/2018, 9:55 AM

Why should they get special treatment? Casey made the point that there's more Polish people in Ireland than travellers, but the Polish aren't an ethnic group. They instead have adjusted to our culture, were treated equally, and as a result integrated.

So why shouldn't travellers also be treated equally? Why should we discriminate in favour of them? Having a special status for travellers discourages any sort of societal integration. It entrenches "traveller culture", which has negative issues such as domestic abuse, animal abuse, crime, event policing, undereducation, environmental damage, tax evasion - all at the expense, financially and otherwise, or greater society. By Varadkar telling Casey to "shut up", by Freeman saying that these issues are somehow our fault, by you saying that it's somehow racist to even bring this up, then we create a groupthink environment where these issues simply can't be discussed. That's the frustration that has led to Casey going from 2% to 21% in a fortnight.

I've already covered the counter-arguments put on the interview - the fighting for educational rights (which they have), the "racism" around villages shutting down at weddings/funerals (obvious issues there), and there was really little enough else to be honest.

Why should we enshrine a culture which is a drain on society in many ways? The argument could be put that I'm only focussing on the negatives - but of course I am. You could say the points are generalisations - but of course they are. That's kind of the point. There are nice people in the traveller community - but it's the negatives that have to be addressed, as is always the case. And the negatives are more prominent than in other population groups. And unless we can talk about the negatives without being shut down with no counter-argument - as you've tried to do - then we can never improve things.

Real ale Madrid

27/10/2018, 10:17 AM

Comparing Travellers to the Polish isn't relevant. We are discussing ethnicity not nationality. Your whole first paragraph is irrelevant. Casey attacking thier ethnicity is attacking the bad and good travellers. Thier ethnicity recognises that they have been victims of racism aind discrimination and is a vital stepping stone to address this within society. It has been fought over for decades by numerous groups from within the travelling community , from human rights organisations from within Ireland and from rights organisations internationally. It is the basis for all Casey's comments. For you to dismiss them as a drain on society is quite frankly astonishing. The factors you cite are prevalent in all downtrodden communities all over the world be they settled or traveller alike.

Casey then doubled down by focusing on a specific set of travellers that turned down social housing while ignoring the rest of the population that turn down social housing. That in itself is discrimination and it's not PC for people to see through that rubbish.

There is no doubt that there is a huge anti social and behavioral problem within the travelling community, massive, no one is or should be denying that.

Real ale Madrid

27/10/2018, 10:23 AM

To reiterate. Peter Casey doesn't understand why Travellers were given ethnic minority. He has no idea why it was done and has absolutely no understanding of what it means.

"Sure they are not Romany or whatever"

"My Pakistani taxi driver couldn't understand the question"

pineapple stu

27/10/2018, 10:29 AM

Comparing Travellers to the Polish isn't relevant. We are discussing ethnicity not nationality. Your whole first paragraph is irrelevant.
Sorry Real Ale - for someone who demanded that I make points and you'd then debate them, this isn't good enough. It is entirely possible to recognise the Polish as an ethnic minority; ethnic minorities can be based on nationality (obligatory wiki link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group) with that definition included at the very start).

So I'd ask you to try again there. Why should we give travellers ethnic status?

In fact, I'm genuinely finding it hard to find a legitimate point within your post. Yes, there's been discrimination in the past - so what? Why should that mean ethnic status now? The radio interviewer went down that tack - the lack of and fight for education rights. But they have education rights now. So how is that still a factor?

You say it's "astonishing" that I dismiss travellers as a drain on society - but again, you give no further arguments on that point. Not one. I've given a number of reasons why I suggest that drain.

It's hard to address your comments when you simply make generalisations like those, and it's ironic that you do so having accused me of the same thing.

backstothewall

27/10/2018, 10:36 AM

If he goes into politics he'll fall flat for a number of reasons.

- He will only be standing in 1 constituency. His whole shtick is his free wheeling style and big personality. Converting that into a political party is extremely difficult in a STV system. Jim Allister has the same issue up here.

- Sinn Fein and pbp already have the populist vote.

- He'll be torn apart by both the media and politican opponents in his next election. All eyes were on MDH this time for obvious reasons.

- He doesn't offer any solutions. It's just a stream of consciousness about what is wrong in Ireland. At some point he will be asked these questions and it will soon become very obvious that he has no idea.

NeverFeltBetter

27/10/2018, 10:41 AM

After the never-ending discussion on the topic, the RTE exit poll found around 2% of voters thought expenses an issue of primary importance to their vote.

Interestingly a lot of people also seemingly very happy with the Presidency as an institution, and its "value for money".

Real ale Madrid

27/10/2018, 10:48 AM

Casey was inferring that travellers shouldnt be recognised as an ethnic minority BECAUSE THEY WERE IRISH. HE was the one making the argument that nationality = ethnicity not me or you to be fair.

I've stated fairly clearly why they should have ethnic status and having fought for the status for years to have them dismissed by some populist gobsh1te because blah blah Romany, and blah blah Pakistani taxi driver is just not right.

You dismissing Travellers as a drain on society? Why, because they have social issues, because they are on social welfare. All marginalised people have these issues. Those issues are not unique to travellers and to call out travelers ahead of the rest of society is discriminatory to them.

I'm always reminded of the Carrickmines tragedy when I think of discrimination against Travellers. 10 people killed in a fire and 3 days later what were the remaining family members subjected to but protested over relocation. While no one would admit that they would be happy to see travellers live close to them that was a step too far for me and only pronounces the divide that exists between thravellers and settled people.

What society needs is elected representatives to represent ALL people not further drive a wedge between sections of society.

pineapple stu

27/10/2018, 11:03 AM

Sorry Real Ale - there's still no points of substance there.

I've noted many reasons why there's a financial drain and you've chosen to ignore them. Crime (they're over-represented in prisons), environmental issues (site clean-ups), tax evasion (self-explanatory), extra security at major events, and so on.

I don't think your reasons why they should be treated differently have any substance. You dismissed comparisons to the Polish because ethnic status can't be based on nationality - but it can be. Travellers can be considered an ethnic group based on ethnic culture within Ireland, but that doesn't negate the comparisons with the Polish population. You also say it's based on historical prejudice - but why enshrine that? As Casey noted, the likes of educational rights are there now. Yes, Casey made the point that they can't be an ethnic group because they're Irish - but his broader argument was what's the point in having them as an ethnic group. That's the argument I'm still trying to tease out here. I would argue that by recognising travellers as a separate ethnic group, that you are driving a wedge into society; you are creating an "us and them" mindset. And the Polish comparison supports that.

I think the Carrickmines issue is virtue signalling on your part to be honest. What happened was undoubtedly a tragedy, of course. But that shouldn't divert from a rational analysis of the reasons why no-one wanted to see travellers live near them. There's no point simply dismissing that issue without attempting to understand it. Were there legitimiate concerns over the anti-social problems which that halting site brought? Serious litter problems and joy-riding would be two that come to mind. Localised crime was probably a concern. Remember, these protests were coming from people who had lived nearby for a number of years - why do you presume they were illegitimate concerns? Why do you presume to know more about the matter than people who had lived nearby?

As I say, what happened in Carrickmines was a tragedy of course, but that's no reason to cancel any rational debate. Again, that's the frustration evident here - this attempt to shut down debate on issues.

Real ale Madrid

27/10/2018, 11:38 AM

Sorry Real Ale - there's still no points of substance there.

In your opinion.

I've noted many reasons why there's a financial drain and you've chosen to ignore them. Crime (they're over-represented in prisons), environmental issues (site clean-ups), tax evasion (self-explanatory), extra security at major events, and so on.
.

I'm not dismissing them - I repeating myself now but all marginalized sections of society experience these problems you quote. 13% of the male population in the US are black yet 77% of male prison inmates are Black. Are Black people a drain on US society? Of course not. These problems are not unique to travelers which is the very point I'm making.

I don't think your reasons why they should be treated differently have any substance. You dismissed comparisons to the Polish because ethnic status can't be based on nationality - but it can be. Travellers can be considered an ethnic group based on ethnic culture within Ireland, but that doesn't negate the comparisons with the Polish population. You also say it's based on historical prejudice - but why enshrine that? As Casey noted, the likes of educational rights are there now.
.

Again I did not dismiss the Polish argument , I made the point - again repeating myself , that Casey argued that Travellers should not get ethnic minority status because they were the same nationality as the rest of us, which is not a justification for arguing against it. It misses the point completely. Ethnicity does not equal nationality. You argued that Ethnicity can be based on nationality and of course I accept that but that is NOT the point Casey was making.

Defined as belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition, ethnicity is not the same as nationality or place of birth. Your ethnicity or cultural background means the group you descended from. An ethnic group is made up by people who share certain characteristics such as culture, language, religion and traditions The recognition of Traveller ethnicity is an acknowledgement that Travellers experience racism and discrimination. The Joint Committee on Justice and Equality said that “travellers are, de facto, a separate ethnic group. This is not a gift to be bestowed upon them, but a fact the State ought to formally acknowledge.

I think the Carrickmines issue is virtue signalling on your part to be honest. What happened was undoubtedly a tragedy, of course. But that shouldn't divert from a rational analysis of the reasons why no-one wanted to see travellers live near them. There's no point simply dismissing that issue without attempting to understand it. Were there legitimiate concerns over the anti-social problems which that halting site brought? Serious litter problems and joy-riding would be two that come to mind. Localised crime was probably a concern. As I say, what happened in Carrickmines was a tragedy of course, but that's no reason to cancel any rational debate. Again, that's the frustration evident here - this attempt to shut down debate on issues.
.

Why is it virtue signalling - its a fact what happened. I've acknowledged the issues facing people that have to live near halting sites. Its an interesting exclamation point on the divide between travellers and the rest of society - is that down in part to the Travellers themselves - of course it is. What society needs is people in positions of responsibility to stop marginalizing them and Casey's comments only further expand that chasm.

Again, that's the frustration evident here - this attempt to shut down debate on issues.

Casey is not interested in debating the issues surrounding travellers - he was no substance to his rants. Where has this debate been shut down ?- apart from my own admittedly unnecessary sharp replies earlier. I apologise for earlier - I'm bothered by all this and I'm not even sure why.

The response I'm getting is - Casey is the only man who said what others were afraid to - that is nonsense in my opinion. He's obviously tapped into something. But its as simple as Travellers = Bad. There is no nuance, no substance to him. He's doubling down on it all morning.

osarusan

27/10/2018, 1:50 PM

Yes, Casey made the point that they can't be an ethnic group because they're Irish - but his broader argument was what's the point in having them as an ethnic group. That's the argument I'm still trying to tease out here. I would argue that by recognising travellers as a separate ethnic group, that you are driving a wedge into society; you are creating an "us and them" mindset. And the Polish comparison supports that.

In my opinion, whether they should be recognised as a separate ethnic group or not shouldn't be based on whether 'there is any point to it' or whether it will create an 'us' and 'them' mindset.

I don't think the issues of whether it's easier, or more cost-effective, or whatever, should come into it.

Once those issues do come into play, it stops being a question of 'are they an ethnic group or not' and starts to be a question of 'is it better/cheaper/easier that they be recognised as an ethnic group or not'.

pineapple stu

27/10/2018, 2:23 PM

I'm not dismissing them - I repeating myself now but all marginalized sections of society experience these problems you quote. 13% of the male population in the US are black yet 77% of male prison inmates are Black. Are Black people a drain on US society? Of course not. These problems are not unique to travelers which is the very point I'm making.
I don't think that comparison holds up to more in-depth scrutiny though. There's obviously an issue with the poor black population in America in particular; they are much more likely to end up in gangs, in jail, etc. That part probably is a drain on American society.

But the traveller issue is more broad - it's a drain in welfare terms, environmental terms, security terms, and so on. And even on the jail issue, you are seven times more likely to be in jail if you're American than if you're Irish. If you extrapolate that linearly (which I accept is dodgy, but it has some merit just to factor in how much stricter sentencing in America is), then there'd be close on 10% of the traveller population in jail. That's a big percentage.

Why is it virtue signalling - its a fact what happened. I've acknowledged the issues facing people that have to live near halting sites. Its an interesting exclamation point on the divide between travellers and the rest of society - is that down in part to the Travellers themselves - of course it is.
I think it's virtue signalling because it's something which is easy for you to say because it doesn't impact you. You've more or less called a group of people racist without once considering their point of view. Why was there protests in the area where they were already living? I've suggested it was because of serious local anti-social issues. Is that not a fair reason not to want a group of people moving in next to you? These are the real issues to be looked at. But you've effectively just dismissed local residents' concerns as racist. That's not acceptable, in my view.

What society needs is people in positions of responsibility to stop marginalizing them and Casey's comments only further expand that chasm.
Who in power is marginalising them? They get disproportionate state support as far as I can see. Where do travellers' own responsibilities in all this lie? Why is everything always someone else's fault these days?

Casey is not interested in debating the issues surrounding travellers - he was no substance to his rants. Where has this debate been shut down ?
I've already covered this - Varadkar telling him to shut up, and Freeman demanding an apology because travellers' problems were our fault. The media furore which seemed to lead to him considering withdrawing entirely (though I doubt he ever seriously did consider it). I've said before that I think a good chunk of the protest vote - if we agree that's what it is - is down to this response.

The response I'm getting is - Casey is the only man who said what others were afraid to - that is nonsense in my opinion. He's obviously tapped into something.
I don't agree on this. I presume your implication is that while he has tapped into something, that's something that others don't consider an issue rather than are afraid to discuss. My arguments on the matter mean I obviously don't agree; I think these are issues to be debated.

Does this make him a Presidential candidate? Of course not, and that's why I voted for Higgins. But would I be in favour of these kind of issues being discussed more often. And Casey's issue wasn't solely around travellers - that was just the one that has gotten the most outrage, and that's now turning circular because it's what he gets asked about, and so it's what he talks about.

But he also queried at the extent and abuse of the welfare state, and I've previously shown a Government report broadly agreeing with this. In that regard, it's unfortunate that Margaret Cash is a traveller, because it has the potential to deflect from criticism of her actions - 50k welfare a year, 38 criminal convictions, but but she can get a lot of media and political traction by demanding her right to a free house. Why are we tolerating this? I think that's all part of the protest vote Casey has tapped into.

pineapple stu

27/10/2018, 2:26 PM

In my opinion, whether they should be recognised as a separate ethnic group or not shouldn't be based on whether 'there is any point to it' or whether it will create an 'us' and 'them' mindset.

I don't think the issues of whether it's easier, or more cost-effective, or whatever, should come into it.

Once those issues do come into play, it stops being a question of 'are they an ethnic group or not' and starts to be a question of 'is it better/cheaper/easier that they be recognised as an ethnic group or not'.
I suppose part of the argument as well is whether there's any real impact from the recognition. I'll be honest here and say that I don't know exactly what formal recognition has granted them. So in that regard, their exact status probably isn't hugely relevant, and the main concern is some bit of a check on the level of support being given to them, all at our own cost of course. (And again, similarly with other excessive welfare issues)

The Fly

27/10/2018, 7:22 PM

Presidential Election result:

Michael D Higgins: 822,566 (55.8%)
Peter Casey: 342,727 (23.3%)
Sean Gallagher: 94,514 (6.4%)
Liadh Ni Riada 93,987 (6.4%)
Joan Freeman: 87,908 (6%)
Gavin Duffy: 32,198 (2.2%)
Spolied: 18,438 (1.2%)

osarusan

27/10/2018, 7:29 PM

I suppose part of the argument as well is whether there's any real impact from the recognition. I'll be honest here and say that I don't know exactly what formal recognition has granted them. So in that regard, their exact status probably isn't hugely relevant, and the main concern is some bit of a check on the level of support being given to them, all at our own cost of course. (And again, similarly with other excessive welfare issues)

Yes, I think that formal recognition can and should be separated from financial support (although realistically, that would probably never be 100% achievable) and can still be grounded within the laws of the land.

Their long history of keeping horses can be recognised, but that doesn't mean they have the right to plant their horses on public ground. If they want to keep them, they get a place to keep them. Their history of sulky racing can be recognised, but that doesn't give them the right to do it on public roads. If they want to do it, get a place to do it.

So much of this stuff is already against the law anyway.

And much of the rest of it is simply a welfare system that just gives in to those who moan loudest or longest, or make the most trouble. Travellers are adept at milking that system, but they are not the only ones who abuse it, not by a long shot.

NeverFeltBetter

27/10/2018, 9:56 PM

pineapple stu

28/10/2018, 7:48 AM

And much of the rest of it is simply a welfare system that just gives in to those who moan loudest or longest, or make the most trouble. Travellers are adept at milking that system, but they are not the only ones who abuse it, not by a long shot.
Absolutely. And as noted earlier, Casey's comments extended to the welfare system in general, but because there's been no outrage about that, all the focus is now on the traveller issue. So if he's being portrayed as a one-trick pony, that's mostly the media's fault for simply focusing on only one of his comments. (I say mostly as really the two comments there are somewhat linked, and I don't think there was a huge amount more to his campaign.)

But they're important issues which need debating. And yet instead all we get is the welfare minister, Regina Doherty, dismissing the comments (https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/presidential-election/casey-faces-new-storm-over-welfare-comments-37443770.html) as "breathtaking ignorance" and listing an irrelevant group of genuine welfare recipients. How can we progress as a society in the face of that level of refusal to discuss relevant issues?

backstothewall

28/10/2018, 11:19 AM

Were SF's core just really not into Ni Riada? Was the poppy thing a bigger deal than it seemed?

I doubt it. They just had the same issues the proxy candidates from other parties had. They were up against an incredibly popular incumbant whose reelection was so obvious that a lot of the public had better things to do than voting.

SF are many things but they aren't stupid. They knew all this going in. It seems unlikely to me that they ever thought they could win, but there are 2 things they might have been after.

1. Boost the profile of Ni Riada. Possibly with a view to running her as a candidate for the Dail. Cork North-West looks the most likely constituency for her. Results there weren't stellar but were slightly up on the 2016 election in what was a tough election for them.

2. The other candidates being so awful they may have received thousands of #2s from people who have never given them anything before. Being transfer toxic has cost them seats in the past. If people gave them a preference this time and the world doesn't end it's maybe more likely they will consider doing it in future.

It remains to be seen if they will derive any benefit on either score in the long term but it's certainly possible

osarusan

28/10/2018, 11:59 AM

But they're important issues which need debating. And yet instead all we get is the welfare minister, Regina Doherty, dismissing the comments (https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/presidential-election/casey-faces-new-storm-over-welfare-comments-37443770.html) as "breathtaking ignorance" and listing an irrelevant group of genuine welfare recipients. How can we progress as a society in the face of that level of refusal to discuss relevant issues?

I'l agree and disagree. They are important issues, and should be discussed properly.

But I wouldn't go anywhere near Peter Casey for the proper discussion.

On the issue of travellers, he didn't know they had already been granted ethnic status, thought they couldn't be a different group because they are as Irish as the rest of us, and because they are not Romany. I'd would say that he actually is fairly ignorant of the whole thing, or at least was until recently. His comments that Michael D should invite them all to live in the Phoenix Park for the next 5 years is sheer bitter stupidity.

On the wider issue of welfare, I don't think he ever went into any specifics, gave any numbers, proposed any solution. As Real Ale Madrid mention earlier, there was no nuance, no substance. It was just a bit of a moan.

I suppose what we could take from it is that there isn't enough proper discussion of it, or recognition of people's frustration with it, meaning that people like Casey, who don't offer much at all beyond a moan, achieve that level of popularity.

pineapple stu

28/10/2018, 12:03 PM

But I wouldn't go anywhere near Peter Casey for the proper discussion.
That's fine, and I would probably agree alright.

To my mind, if this puts the subjects on some more mainstream political radars, that's a result.

Unfortunately, the continuing reaction ("Don't vote for losers" is I think the Varadkar comment in the papers today) is more of the same - no discussion, and just effectively stirring the pot of people who want these topics addressed. That can't help.

Gather round

29/10/2018, 10:03 AM

Morning all and congrats to Miggledy ;) Bizarre election but plenty of interest for this outsider...

Why should we give travellers ethnic status?

It's an effective way of addressing ingrained very poor health, education and other localised social problems resulting from decades/ centuries of discrimination etc? (I'm willing to be convinced it's not the only nor most effective way)

[Casey's]whole shtick is his free wheeling style and big personality. Converting that into a political party is extremely difficult in a STV system. Jim Allister has the same issue up here

Squeaky Jim was effective as part of a tiny opposition at Stormont, to be fair to him.

I'd recommend you

* cut the term to 5 years

* accept that if the political parties can't be arsed cranks will be encouraged to stand

* have James McClean in the Dana/ Casey/ Derrytoken role next time (he was quite effective/ active in the last GE in Foyle)

pineapple stu

29/10/2018, 5:13 PM

It's an effective way of addressing ingrained very poor health, education and other localised social problems resulting from decades/ centuries of discrimination etc?
How so?

Gather round

29/10/2018, 5:47 PM

If you accept that those ingrained social problems are broadly as serious as I suggested, then there's a need to address them with something more than targeted state funding that other disadvantaged groups might expect.

Also if their community representatives say that's what the community wants (difficult to be sure if people tend not to vote, I accept). Even then self-identification can be a fraught issue, as we're seeing with Gender Recognition issues over here.

pineapple stu

29/10/2018, 6:27 PM

If you accept that those ingrained social problems are broadly as serious as I suggested, then there's a need to address them with something more than targeted state funding that other disadvantaged groups might expect.
How does recognition as an ethnic group do that? You're just giving soundbytes here when a debate is what's required.

At what stage do Pavee Point say "Lads, do you know what - we need to make a concerted effort to address what the wider society perceives as our faults. There is an issue around thieving in our community. Of course we're not all thieves, and no-one's saying that, but the statistics do indicate a far higher rate of petty theft and burglary among travellers as a group. We need to make a concerted effort - as a community - to reduce this"?

(Don't get me started on gender recognition btw...another crock of ****e)

backstothewall

30/10/2018, 1:05 AM

Morning all and congrats to Miggledy ;) Bizarre election but plenty of interest for this outsider...

It's an effective way of addressing ingrained very poor health, education and other localised social problems resulting from decades/ centuries of discrimination etc? (I'm willing to be convinced it's not the only nor most effective way)

Squeaky Jim was effective as part of a tiny opposition at Stormont, to be fair to him.

I'd recommend you

* cut the term to 5 years

* accept that if the political parties can't be arsed cranks will be encouraged to stand

* have James McClean in the Dana/ Casey/ Derrytoken role next time (he was quite effective/ active in the last GE in Foyle)

Allister was effective, but a second seat has never looked close.

Casey has gone off the reservation. He won't be able to build on his 20% next time because he won't be getting a single nomination next time.

He won't be selected as a FF candidate for the dail in donegal either. Holding 2 seats there is already looking like a 7-10 split if SF can avoid the massive balls of things they made last time.

I do wonder when next time will be. At his age a full 7 year term for MDH is far from guaranteed.

Gather round

30/10/2018, 12:08 PM

How does recognition as an ethnic group do that? You're just giving soundbytes here when a debate is what's required

Not my intention (nor effect either, I'd say). As I said, I offer an interested outsider's POV- traveller communities are an issue over here at the moment. Recognition as ethnically separate may not reduce the incidence of social problems or crime etc., but as it's supported by government action, academic research (see Wikipedia) and Community reps clearly many others are confident it will. I just posed a question before wading in.

At what stage do Pavee Point say "We need to make a concerted effort - as a community - to reduce [criminality and its perception by others]"?

I genuinely thought they already had. Listening to a talk show recently (Irish Times Inside Politics IIRC) a woman called Catherine was making similar points.

(Don't get me started on gender recognition btw...another crock of ****e)

'Soundbytes', you say? :D

Gather round

30/10/2018, 12:12 PM

I do wonder when next time will be. At his age a full 7 year term for MDH is far from guaranteed

If it's in 3 or 4 years time, presumably the Big 2 parties will have candidates, as well as SF. Bad-tempered bunfight ensuing.

If much sooner, who knows?

mypost

01/11/2018, 10:59 AM

Casey has gone off the reservation. He won't be able to build on his 20% next time because he won't be getting a single nomination next time.

He won't be selected as a FF candidate for the dail in donegal either. Holding 2 seats there is already looking like a 7-10 split if SF can avoid the massive balls of things they made last time.

I'm sure he doesn't want to be the next George Lee. It's one thing wheeling and dealing at the top table of businesses, and another thing running clinics, to see that washing machines get fixed and helping constituents get hospital beds.

Lee couldn't hack TD life after 9 months with no power. I doubt Casey would.

NeverFeltBetter

01/11/2018, 11:27 AM

I'd say, like a lot of people who run Independent nowadays, he might be aiming for the Mick Wallace model of rocketing to the top of the polls as some kind of locally praised take-no-prisoners maverick outsider and then continuing that trend in the Dail. Wallace doesn't do clinics as far as I'm aware (and, you know, the whole tax fraud thing), and still got re-elected (albeit with a very reduced vote, he might be in trouble next time).

mypost

03/11/2018, 9:06 AM

Wallace doesn't do constituency clinics, but the vast majority have to. It's a culture shock for someone coming from the dog eat dog world of the private sector, to suddenly have to do favours for people. Everything from attending marriages and parties, to getting medical cards and tv licences. And as George Lee discovered, it's not for everyone.

Last week, he was adamant he would win the election. This weekend, he gave a rambling, incoherent, delusional interview to RTE, about where he sees himself going with his 300k votes. The highlights being that he's going to run in several constituencies in the next election, rather than the one he's limited to, and that he will be Taoiseach in 2020 with FF back in office, as the audience howled with laughter. I suppose when you don't know how to get elected, don't have any policies to offer the electorate and don't know how to get them passed and implemented, it's easy to lose what's left of your marbles.