You're not going to vote for Mitchell I take it?
But Davis, Scallan and Gallagher are acceptable?
Printable View
You're not going to vote for Mitchell I take it?
But Davis, Scallan and Gallagher are acceptable?
The Presidential election is underwhelming, well the candidates are, but the actual vote on the day is going to be interesting. FG should clean up given their support, but it probably won't pan out that way.
I’ve a soft spot for David Norris , as he was a regular visit to the private home for ex-Alexandran’s in Harold’s Cross where an aunt of mine lived for a number of years. I know she greatly appreciated the interactions with him, and kept her mind sane well into her 90’s before a sister of hers done her in. So in that respect I have a certain amount of bias for Senator Norris. Plus I’d love to see how the churchies would react to him. The worry though is that something else with come out in the laundry. He's getting my #1 at this stage.
I've nothing against Michael D, he's got a few strings to his bow, but I just don't like him. That said he's a far better prospect than most of the others so I'll give him #2.
Gay Mitchell I wouldn't be fond of, he doesn't ever seem to have that humble touch that the recent President's seemed to have had. I'm not sure he’s even the best FG candidate (step forward Sean Kelly or John Bruton). He should command a sizeable vote, but just as many FG’ers hate him as non-FG do, so he’s not guaranteed.
That leaves McGuinness. I'm convinced that he’s gonna win. It seems to me that nobody cares about the election itself. The turnout could quite possibly be low. SF will make sure that their supporters turn up to vote.
About a year ago I was chatting about the next President being incumbent during the 100 yr anniversary of the 1916 rising with my Da. I persuaded him to put 50blips on Gerry Adams, as he’s Party leader. I was convinced he was going to run himself, but alas we picked the wrong horse. We got odds of 100/1. I’ll cry if McGuinness makes it.
Mary Davis has NEVER been a member of any political party. She was appointed to numerous state boards, paid and unpaid. The fact that FF have been in power for most of the 20 years of her involvement on these boards is coincidental. I didnt realise FG or Labour could appoint people to state bodies when in opposition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Give this crap a break re her FF connections..... People getting desperate in their detractions
And for the record I will be voting Mary Davis No.1(I'm the 1 vote - 4.35% represented on this foot.ie poll), Martin McGuinness 2, and Norris 3. If election goes the way I anticipate that vote should be good value
Not being a member of FF doesn't make her not a shill for them.
Ah not to worry, she'll be gone long before the real counting starts on Higgins, Mitchell, Norris and McGuinness.
What was her particular area expertise that lead to her being appointed to, for example, Aer Rianta? Or the Broadcasting Commission?Quote:
Originally Posted by thebooboys
Any online poll I've seen has been the same as this. McGuinness and Norris neck and neck. Only one different is one on a massive Celtic forum with McGuinness on 88% :DQuote:
Originally Posted by thebooboys
Looking over his previous posts will show you his true ahem, colours. He likes to hide under a bridge I understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
That's surprising. I mean, are those other 12% actually real Celtic fans? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by TiocfaidhArmani
Norris on Last Word now.
That was George Hook no less, interviewing Norris on the Last Word.
Can an interview get any worse? How to repeatedly ask the same question in a hundred same ways, just listen to George. If you though Norris is conceited, at least he has something to be conceited about, but Hook is a true empty vessel.
Norris pitched his main reason why he should be president, that we (we the people) should have one political institution, free from the clutches of the political parties. Fair enough point.
The reality is, the president is powerless. The president should at least have the power to refer a bill to the people for a referendum but there is fleck all in the constitution to protect the people from parliament abuse. The reality is, the citizens are treated as part of a franchise, the one they call Ireland inc, valued as resources for profit rather than as human beings with existential rights.
It was Matt Cooper on the last word.
The presidentcan refer bills, but is hamstrung by the fact that if a bill is referred and is then probed constitutional it can never be challenged again. It's this rule alone which makes the president's role so frustrating.
Funnily, I was reading the constitution in relation to an anomaly in Article 42.5 which is bugging me (and something that I'm gonna have to get to the bottom of) and I decided to read the section on the President and its rather incredible how petrified Dev was of an executive President when you see the limits he imposed.
Presidents role is what it is. I don't remember too many proposals to change the constitution to give it more power? Given it's pretty much been FFers the whole time, think of how they could've (and probably would've) fecked up the interparty Governments over the years. Do you think we would've had "good" ffers like Hillery in the aras if it had real power?
It's a non-political head of state role - I do have sympathy with the "just get rid of the role" argument, but then it does save the executive from being distracted. We hardly need Kenny having to drop everything every other week for some visiting head of state, who's equally as powerless as our President, to go through the motions...
Perish the thought.
Still never get my head around Paddy as an FFer.
Thebooboys you're now 1 of 2 voting for MD number 1. I'm making her my top choice as I've met her, seen her work (Special Olympics) and know that she can do a great job - we need a President who can get out the begging bowl, contrary to what that numpty Gurdgiev says.
Second will with MMcG, purey because I think he'll need it,he'll flatter to deceive as the Irish government won't allow him be voted in. 3rd Sean Gallagher, he'll be long gone anyway if there's a 2nd count. Gay Mitchell I have time for, I think he's a better person than many would believe and I feel sorry for him that FG are selling him out.
Dana might be a bit of a jesus freak, but she's intelligent and will be interesting to listen to.
Michael D is too self serving, figures he deserves it and wants to turn the Aras back into a retirement home. Plus he gets on my nerves, he's someone you'd never tire of slapping.
David Norris is a non-runner for me. He'll do well, until the next scandal, and his arrogance and stupidity (in equal measure) keep coming through. As a person I have time for him, I respect deeply the work he has done to save so much of our archaeological and historical record. He was alone in the political establishment in the late-80's, early-90's trying to bring to light a pedophile ring in a north city school and his sheer jollity I admire. However he just sank himself with the letters and his reaction. Plus I don't want to see him destroyed 100% in the public eye. He's too decent of a person for that.
It'd be interesting to know does Mary Davis still have an interest in Communicorp and whether she's still a member of the Irish Times trust. It might explain the depth of the research into her so far is whether her posters are airbrushed....
Then what I heard was Hook interviewing Norris on Newstalk after 6pm.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
A Parliament will never ever propose or willingly grant any extra executive legislative power to a president.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
The president's role is what it is, but the constitution is not fit for purpose. The executive power is given to the elected party/gov ministers, who are not bound by the election promises/platform on which they get elected.
I take it Kenny was attending McGuinness's launch in a private capacity?
I said proposals, which can come from any member of the Oireachtas, not just from Government. Plenty in there that will never be in Government or the Aras that could've proposed changes. They could've been proposed, but I'm not aware of any.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
I agree regarding the constitution - that's why I was in favour of the Labour proposal for a complete revisit. Disagree to a certain extent on them being bound on promises- any Government has to face the people where they can give their verdict on performance based on pre-election promises. However, and in line with constitutional reform I'd like a mechanism for calling an election for the people though - as we saw in the last Government, it's very hard to force an election even when there are decisions to be made that'll effect generations to come which weren't on the agenda at the last election.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
The 22 counties - Gay Mitchell , mmmm not sure this debate is telling us much.