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.
If these were new measures that were put in place to block McGregor Id agree with you, but he needed to do the same canvassing work as everyone to get on and he couldnt even be bothered to try that. Thats on himQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Oh I know what happened was within the rules - but that's why I disagree with the rules here
If McGregor did manage to get on the ballot, does anyone think there would be possibility that there would be enough yahoos in the country that would vote him in? Id like to think no, but I never thought Brexit would get voted for and I never thought Trump would get elected once never mind twice!
He was polling in single digits when he was being mooted as a candidate. If he was one of four (as in, him and the three others), then that would probably increase. But it's a long way from single digits - with a lot of people very opposed - to winning.
That was partly my point, they'd love it, pounce on it and have a pop at the EU indirectly also, Germany in Many ways being the lead the EU so the leader of the EU is Nazi....so says the (possible) Irish head of state.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
There is part of me that would want to see McGregor at a presedential debate on tv, the curious mischief part, and part of me would have been abhored by him having any platform. I think a little bit of me would be embarressed that he was able to get on the ballot and while he wouldt have won, I dont think he'd have polled as badly as people would hope, getting low double digits. I know too many people that dismiss his conviction for being a civil case, ask them about admitted drug use and you get a bunch of whataboutery and evasion, or a simple well I like what he says (on immigration). He didnt turn up for a number of council meetings he was scheduled to canvas at. All in all I think Im glad that he hadnt a clue about the process, even if how it happened gives oxygen to the being silenced type claims his supporters would make. People who were elected at local, Dail and Seanad making nominations on our behalf is just about acceptible to me. Maybe they should be allowed a free vote without risk of losing the party whip, as a middle of the road?!
I deleted a mate of mine that Id known since we were kids off social media around St Patricks day when McGregor was at the White House. Cant remember what exactly sparked the conversation between us but what he said to me was that " I think both McGregor and Trump are horrible cnuts and are criminals, but at least they are getting rid of woke so I'd vote for either of them given the chance."Quote:
Originally Posted by Nesta99
I wonder how much of that sort of crap would there be if McGregor did get on the ballot, an anti establishment vote that would bring out people who wouldnt normally care to vote
I think comparing ther IRA to the bestiality of HAMAS is very harsh on the IRA. The ira killed probably 1500 people over 30 odd years HAMAS raped and killed roughly the same amount virtusly all civilians in a single day. Connolly is just wrong and the fact that her own "backers" didnt endorse her views says it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razors left peg
How long before she drops a clanger if she was elected??
I was thinking about that possibility myself, that people would vote for him as protest vote. Many people I know who voted for Brexit said there were p1ssed with the government of the day and just voted against the establishment, and now moan that they didnt realise that a lot of others were doing the same. I was probably over estimating this but I am getting an impression that there were too many that could have voted in a similar pattern. It was similar in the GE before last when a lot of people gave preferences to SF that they wouldnt usually. So there is a disillusionment that could have fueled support. I find myself more and more feeling like I am voting for least worst candidates rather than what I would consider good candidates, inluding UK elections also. The last 2 presedential elections are arguably the last 2 that I was fine with, voting for what I thought was a strong candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razors left peg
Keeping populist nutters out of the race is important. In the dumbed down social media world we live in if micky D had run against the winner of strictly come dancing he would probably lose. I think the current bar is ok as you need to get serious people to nominate you. But id probably put in another bar against people with criminal records.
The dumbing down of politics with the likes of Trump , Farage, boris johnson etc getting elected should make us all worried.
Who decides what views are populist and shouldn't be allowed though?
The people by giving their proxy to those they'd already elected? Maybe parts of the system that elects to the Seanad like NUI/TCD/+TUs. Convene citizen's assemblies in the year before. Allow public nominations to each council which secures x amount of the vote? There are certainly simple enough ways to change things up a bit but currently the 1st point on giving proxy votes by virtue that we have already elected these people that we are able to trust to represent us totally. Ban people with criminal backgrounds, and allow free voting (anonymous?) for parlimentarians.
We should have a referendum on the same day as the election to change the rules to open up the ballot and annoy those that missed out!
You could argue that the elections offer a very narrow range of views you can vote on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nesta99
FF/FG are practically the same thing these days, and their popularity has probably never been lower. The political climate has never been more fragmented with increased number of random independents suggesting a growing frustration at FF/FG, yet no-one seems able or willing to come in and take over from them.
I reckon McGregor knew full well that he had no chance of being nominated, and only put his name forward so that he could pull the trick of complaining about how "They" blocked him. He was talking about "standing up to the government" like he had no understanding of the actual role, or believed his supporters had no of it.
That's on the people in opposition. It's not good enough to offer change because the incumbants are sluggish. Governments around the world have ruined their own countries for the purposes of personal enrichment, ideology, or just plain old incompetence. If you can't even form a credible political party, why is anyone to trust you with a whole country?Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu