Kenny v Bruton v Labour

**mypost** · 18/06/2010, 3:50 PM

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

In any case, its fairly clear that the reason they didn't go into Government wasn't due to some clever strategy to let FF hang themselves a bit more, it was, as someone mentioned above, because Inda missed an open goal.

Inda may be capable underneath the robotic exterior, but the wider public haven't warmed to him, despite having the guts of a decade to do so. He's not going to change the wider opinion at this stage, so he's a deadweight anchor to FG. However well they do, they would do better without him.

The public haven't warmed to him, but they wouldn't warm to anyone. Did anyone outside of Southern England warm to Cameron? Doesn't matter, he's in now, with a mandate to sort out their mess.

Enda took a party that was 50 seats behind FF in 2002, to head 76 opposition TD's in the Dail. He didn't get an open goal to miss a sitter last time, but he's since helped make his party the biggest in the country in 8 years. And now what happens? Some opportunists want him removed, after all that work.

**bennocelt** · 18/06/2010, 4:01 PM

Originally Posted by mypost

The public haven't warmed to him, but they wouldn't warm to anyone. Did anyone outside of Southern England warm to Cameron? Doesn't matter, he's in now, with a mandate to sort out their mess.

Enda took a party that was 50 seats behind FF in 2002, to head 76 opposition TD's in the Dail. He didn't get an open goal to miss a sitter last time, but he's since helped make his party the biggest in the country in 8 years. And now what happens? Some opportunists want him removed, after all that work.

Come on................he isnt even able to sort out his own party and your talking about him as leader of the country in the future.

**OneRedArmy** · 18/06/2010, 4:22 PM

Originally Posted by mypost

The public haven't warmed to him, but they wouldn't warm to anyone. Did anyone outside of Southern England warm to Cameron? Doesn't matter, he's in now, with a mandate to sort out their mess.

Enough warmed to him to get him in power!

Originally Posted by mypost

Enda took a party that was 50 seats behind FF in 2002, to head 76 opposition TD's in the Dail. .

You've just compared two things that actually don't mean anything when compared?

The relevant fact is that he added 20 TDs from 2002, which given what went on in that 5 year period, both in terms of the economic situation and the truth that emerged as to way Bertie, Cowan & Co run themselves, was an abject and pitiful performance. It was less than 4 of the 5 elections in the 80s for example.

Originally Posted by mypost

He didn't get an open goal to miss a sitter last time, but he's since helped make his party the biggest in the country in 8 years. And now what happens? Some opportunists want him removed, after all that work.

Biggest in the country?!? What measure, TDs? No, still FF. Polling? No, Labour have taken that one.

He's up against a bunch of inbreds and crooks and you're trumpeting a performance that is worse than at any time since the 60s?!

**mypost** · 18/06/2010, 4:39 PM

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Enough warmed to him to get him in power!

Unsurprisingly, related question not answered.

The relevant fact is that he added 20 TDs from 2002, which given what went on in that 5 year period, both in terms of the economic situation

What went on in that period? The economy grew almost every year.

the truth that emerged as to way Bertie, Cowan & Co run themselves.

The truth didn't emerge, in Joe and Joanna Public's eyes, until the last election was over.

Biggest in the country?!?What measure,

Biggest in local councils.

TDs? No, still FF. He's up against a bunch of inbreds and crooks

Those inbreds and crooks are always elected, given the FF support base. You don't need me to tell you that. FF will always have the most individual TD's in the Dail, even in opposition. Every other party has to scramble for the rest, and FG and Labour have to get more seats combined than FF, in order to get into government. That's how our system works.

**Lim till i die** · 19/06/2010, 5:05 PM

Can anyone give me 5 good reasons why Bruton or Coveney would be a better bet than Enda??

Not being flippant, just curios like.

**dahamsta** · 19/06/2010, 8:13 PM

Enda
Enda
Enda
Enda
Enda

**mypost** · 19/06/2010, 8:23 PM

Saw the two opposition leaders speech on the no confidence motion during the week. While Enda kept on hitting the target with his speech, Gilmore's dissolved into essentially a pre-election speech which had little if no relevance to the motion concerned.

**Dodge** · 19/06/2010, 8:43 PM

Originally Posted by mypost

Saw the two opposition leaders speech on the no confidence motion during the week. While Enda kept on hitting the target with his speech, Gilmore's dissolved into essentially a pre-election speech which had little if no relevance to the motion concerned.

Thats because the motion itself was nothing more than electioneering by FG. Completely pointles motion they knew they'd lose. Unless you think they did it for the good of the country?

**Lim till i die** · 19/06/2010, 8:47 PM

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Enda
Enda
Enda
Enda
Enda

Er, ya, cheers Adam.

Personnally, I wouldn't vote for a party led by Simon Coveney if twas to safe my life anyway, has always struck me as being about as genuine as a hoors kiss. I can just picture the smug dripping off the likes of himself and Varadkar at the top table as they shag the poor.

Actually screw it, that's just Fine Gael all over.

**mypost** · 20/06/2010, 6:19 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

Thats because the motion itself was nothing more than electioneering by FG. Completely pointles motion they knew they'd lose.

Everyone knew the result beforehand. But it was Labour doing the electioneering, and FG focussing on the motion. I've seen Kenny nail speeches on motions before, and it was no surprise he did again. No surprise either that Gilmore didn't. His strength is the "soundbite", and that's why he's the strongest leader in the polls.

**Dodge** · 20/06/2010, 9:07 AM

Originally Posted by mypost

Everyone knew the result beforehand. But it was Labour doing the electioneering, and FG focussing on the motion.

Once again, you've entirely missed the point. FG bringing the motion was electioneering. Nothing more

**dahamsta** · 20/06/2010, 7:40 PM

While you're right on a basic level Dodge, you could say the same about anything anyone in politics does right now. And it's not exactly unusual for the opposition to bring motions that haven't a hope of succeeding forward. It's just part of what you do in opposition. To be fair like.

**Dodge** · 20/06/2010, 8:48 PM

Originally Posted by dahamsta

While you're right on a basic level Dodge, you could say the same about anything anyone in politics does right now. And it's not exactly unusual for the opposition to bring motions that haven't a hope of succeeding forward. It's just part of what you do in opposition. To be fair like.

I didn't say I had a problem with it adam, I was just counteracting mypost when he said Labour didn't bother to debate the motion but rather Gilmore gave a pre-election speech.

My point was that both FG and Labour are clearly in election mode and they both used that opportunity to campaign. FG by tabling the motion, Labout by having Gilmore speak in the manner he did

Ansolutely nothing wrong with either "tactic"

**Mr A** · 20/06/2010, 9:14 PM

The motion of confidence means that FF backbenchers have to go in and actually stand up for the government at a time when many would like to disassociate themselves from it. It's worth doing from time to time just to keep them honest (and you never know, some of the dumbass FF backbenchers might vote the wrong way accidentally)- but I think at a time like this they should have held fire for a bit to see if they could find something they could bring them down with.

**Spudulika** · 21/06/2010, 6:49 AM

Originally Posted by Mr A

The motion of confidence means that FF backbenchers have to go in and actually stand up for the government at a time when many would like to disassociate themselves from it. It's worth doing from time to time just to keep them honest (and you never know, some of the dumbass FF backbenchers might vote the wrong way accidentally)- but I think at a time like this they should have held fire for a bit to see if they could find something they could bring them down with.

Mr A, the frightening thing is that these clowns have been backing the government all along, with their noses buried in the trough. And they show no shame of leaving the party or ousting Biffo. So on every level they're betraying the country and their electorate. However come the next election they'll have the sheep voting for them - so long as they do 5 house calls a night and make sure to be at enough churches of a Sunday and funerals no matter what day!

**dahamsta** · 21/06/2010, 7:56 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

I didn't say I had a problem with it adam, I was just counteracting mypost when he said Labour didn't bother to debate the motion but rather Gilmore gave a pre-election speech.

Fairy Nuff.

Originally Posted by Spudulika

However come the next election they'll have the sheep voting for them - so long as they do 5 house calls a night and make sure to be at enough churches of a Sunday and funerals no matter what day!

I couldn't get over the church gate collections a few weeks back! I had no idea that happened, I was gobsmacked when I heard it on the radio.

**Macy** · 21/06/2010, 9:57 AM

Are people above seriously suggesting that FG could've lead a stable coalition after the last election? It was spin by FG at the time, maybe it's coming back to bite them if it's being held up as an example of cowardice. Is it the new FF line of attack?

As Mr A says, there was nothing wrong with tabling the confidence motion even if they thought they'd lose - it makes the FF backbenchers, the Greens and independents put up or shut up. For the next while they can't talk one way and vote the other without being reminded of it. The problem was the FG infighting overshadowing it.

**dahamsta** · 21/06/2010, 10:46 AM

Any opinions on who should lead Labour? Apart from the current muppet, obviously.

**OneRedArmy** · 21/06/2010, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Any opinions on who should lead Labour? Apart from the current muppet, obviously.

Someone who knows what a policy is and isn't afraid to use it?

Its often said that the people get the Government they deserve, and on that basis, Labour are stoking up the public in the search for scapegoats and blame for whats happened in the past, whilst ignoring the more crucial bit of how we are going to get out of the mess. By all means hold people accountable for past sins, but surely they have to come out with some definitive road-map sooner or later.

In terms of who would lead them, its a moot point if they continue to do well in the polls. But assuming people realise the emperor has no clothes, I can't imagine that Burton is leadership material and I don't profess to know much about the young guns coming through the ranks.

**Macy** · 21/06/2010, 11:31 AM

I'm happy with Gilmore. I know you're not, but if he can translate the opinion polls into an election result, there should be a raft of potential next leaders from a generation down? Muppet or not, surely the bigger picture is a first labour Taoiseach - and not just from a Labour point of view, but the chance for the state to move away from a permenant right wing member of Government?