Presidential Election 2018

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

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 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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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

---

In your opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

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)

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%)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

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%)

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

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 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

But they're important issues which need debating. And yet instead all we get is the welfare minister, Regina Doherty, dismissing the comments 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PA Stu

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BttW

[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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

'Soundbytes', you say? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

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.

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).

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.