Printable View
Just 3 candidates managed to get the backing to be on the ballot paper come October 24th, this is the lowest number since the 1990 campaign. Names on the Ballot paper will be
Heather Humphreys (Fine Gael)
Jim Gavin (Fianna Fail)
Catherine Connolly (Independent)
Connolly would be getting my vote, and hope she get in as the last thing we need is more FF or FG centre right sway in Irish politicos
I personally like Catherine Connolly, mainly because I met her a few times and she is a genuinely nice person. From a political point of view I also think that shes inoffensive enough, and for me the President should be fairly down the middle while acting as a good ambassador for the country
I was about to bemoan the low number of candidates but when you think about who was trying to be on the ballot, setting the bar for nomination quite high was a good thing.
Yeah the last think that was needed was letting McGregor get on the ballot and given a platform to spout his sh1teQuote:
Originally Posted by Nesta99
I wonder will her foot in mouth moment reduce the support from the left parties seem as how none of them backed her up. She needs the shinners and their cash for sure
Two horse race between Humphries and Connolly realistically.
Think Connolly is the best candidate out of the three to provide some level of continuity to the job Higgins has done really.
All of them turned up to her launch party on Monday, which was after the statement, so no lack of commitment there. Connolly's biggest difficulty will be transfers - even if she did get the roughly 40% of FPV that the combined left register in polling, I can't see how she gets over the line once Gavin's eliminated, and his preferences overwhelmingly go to Humphreys.
Any opinions of Connolly's comments drawing parallels between rearmament of Germany in the 1930 and Germany's increased military spending today. It wasnt suggesting that Germany was at it again, but it was a bit clumsy I think. She isnt wrong about the policy backing the military industrial complex helping to boost the sluggish German economy. We shouldnt in any way fear putting noses out of joint, but referencing Nazi Germany period if not Nazi directly, and making a comparison to today can be taken out of context and used, drop the word 'some'!?
"They're absolutely championing the cause of the military-industrial complex in Germany, as a booster for the economy ... Seems to me, there are some parallels with the ’30s."
Daily Mail like reporting 'Irish Presidential candidate says there are parallels between Nazi Germany and biggest EU economy'...
Connollys coments that Hamas are part of the fabric of Palastinian society and shouldnt be ruled out of being part of the future are just stupid.
On the same basis the Nazis should have been allowed be part of the West German Government after WW2.
Its that kind of stupidity we could do without in a President.
Higgins would have been to smart to say something like that.
You'd think that paper would be ok with those parallels, given their history
Im probably going to write this clumsily so my apologies if I dont make my point well. Vastly different versions of the IRA were part of the future of Ireland after conflicts. After the Treaty in 1921 the IRA were involved in the future, and after the Good Friday Agreement the likes of Martin McGuinness who were in IRA were part of the process moving forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbgawa
Would that not be more of a correct parallel to Hamas instead of the comparison to Nazi Germany?
I was going to post the exact same thing.
Additionally - who the **** are we in the west, who have stood by and watched Israel bomb Palestine for decades, and even supplied weapons to them, to tell the Palestinians who to vote for? The west has a bad history of getting involved in democracy and generating resentment by overthrowing democratically-elected candidates. Let's maybe learn from our lessons?
You would of course hope that, if there is a free Palestine (which is a long way off) and if Hamas got elected, that they would moderate their conduct or be voted out.
But it's not for us to tell Palestinians how to vote. Or at least be consistent and tell Israelis they can't vote for Likud.
I'd place McGregor slightly above Hamas on my Christmas card list - which isn't saying a huge amount - but I actually disagree with the way McGregor was blocked from standing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razors left peg
To be clear - he shouldn't have been allowed to stand. He's a convicted rapist. That alone should bar him. But, bizarrely, it didn't.
Instead, he was effectively blocked because of what he wanted to stand for. That's not democracy for me.
There's a glaring rift growing in Ireland lately over issues such as housing, immigration and climate change in particular, and Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael have shown they have no intention of addressing any of those. It's appalling from them.
But now we have a case where someone goes to stand on a populist view directly opposite Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael, and they then to all intents and purposes stop him from running. The problem with that is it blocks debate, and leads to more polarisation. Let him stand, let him have his say, let him not get in, let FF/FG realise that their actions are in danger of costing them power and adjust their views (as we've seen with changes to refugee views in Europe lately) - that's democracy. Not "We don't like your views so we're going to silence you"
And again, McGregor specifically still shouldn't be allowed stand because he's a convicted rapist. But apparently criticising mass immigration is a worse crime.
There are at least 10 TDs at present who were elected precisely because they are anti-immigration (Independent Ireland, Aontú, Mattie McGrath, Carol Nolan, Verona Murphy, and Noel Grealish), so McGregor's problem was that he was too feckless to check the constitutional rules on how to campaign for the presidency, didn't bother to canvas the councils, and his drug-addled boorishness made him toxic to members of the Oireachtas. As for Maria Steen, rather than the establishment circling ranks, it was similarly deciding to stand at the last minute, not meeting all her potential target names, and setting Sharon Keogan's Twitter following on Senators who were on the fence that ultimately put paid to her chances.
The rules for getting on the ballot have been in place long before McGregor. He didnt try to work within those controls like every other past and present candidate , instead he just tried to shout loudly and bully his way in. If nothing else, it shows the method set in place for getting on the ballot is a great thingQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I agree McGregor is hardly a shining light of intelligence.
But so what? Let him stand and let him get nowhere. Instead, there's potentially the image he's been silenced because of what he was saying. I think that's actually unhelpful.
In the US you have to be nominated by your party to get on the ballot for the Presidential election (unless you are throwing money away as a 3rd party candidate). We arent the only ones that have controlsQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Let's not go taking the US as beacons of democratic functions in fairness!
They can barely be said to be a democracy, with just two parties and the fact of Presidents winning despite getting less votes than the loser.
In any event, McGregor would have been an effective third party candidate (as is my understanding), so let him throw his money away.
Yeah the US isnt something to strive to be, I was just making the point that we arent the only ones that control who can get on a ballot
No, it's fair - and by calling for him to be banned from standing for being a convicted rapist, I'm also in favour of controls of who can go on the ballot.
I just don't think the way it's happened is at all helpful, strangely.