Irish Presidential Election 2025

[sbgawa]

Not just for the left. Now, expecting FF or FG to lose the next election has been a national dream since, well, forever, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see one or both in the next government. Their impulse to hold power is as strong as the left’s to pick internal fights that only matter to themselves. But they also need boots on the ground for the same reasons you mention. And they need to start delivering benefits people can feel like a housing policy that works, action on high supermarket and utility costs and so on. If people are content and financially OK, there’s less breeding ground for right-wing malcontent.


Well, yes and no. 6% of the total electorate when a 60% turnout is considered good, but 13% of the 46% who were motivated to go to the ballot box, which is six times higher than the norm, is bad. Those spoiled votes achieved no electoral purpose, and in a campaign as lacklustre as this, might have just stayed at home. But for some reason, they were motivated to go the polling station and demonstrate that they were actively spoiling their ballot, not just leaving it blank. If you consider that a good proportion of Gavin’s 7% was also a form of deliberate spoil, but less crudely effected than writing Maria Steen’s name, then you’re losing one in five of those who turned out, or about one-tenth of the total electorate, which means that about 65% of the electorate didn’t engage in a democratically meaningful way. What I take from that is that this was an exercise in suppressing the vote, and enough gullible people fell for it to work. Next vote (assuming the government stays the distance it will be the always hard to get excited about locals and Europeans in 2029) expect it to be more refined.


So, not a fan then, sbgawa? I think ‘virtue signaling loo la’ was the clue.

Look, you don’t like her: fine. You’re entitled to that opinion, though, sorry to be blunt, it’s fatuous. I question her judgement, and hope she has the sense to accept good advice in the role – you know: like girl guides, good; Éirigí gunslingers, not good. I would have greater issue with her career at the bar if she had ever refused to take on a client because that would bring her honesty and integrity into question. (By the way, does anyone happen to know which banks she represented, or how often?)

But saying you'd rather a populist idiot you could laugh at disturbs me. Because too many people are saying it, or variations of it, and that's devaluing politics. A populist idiot wouldn't represent me, or most of the people I know. Make me king for a day and I'd raise the bar: none of the three on the ballot were presidential material. But I'd rather see Connolly grow into the role and have a good term in office, than wish for a Waldo Moment.

As for presidents pushing the limits of their powers, the constitution isn't written on tablets of stone. It's a living document that shifts with generational changes in social and cultural mores. I suggest we're not as delicate as some make us out to be, and we'd survive with a modest bout of pearl-clutching if a president says something controversial or annoys the government. I'd rather that than Hillery's legacy - lowest golf handicap of any European head of state. (I'm being mean: a reluctant office holder, and he had to be cajoled into both terms - he had legitimate hopes of succeeding Lynch as Taoiseach – is maybe the right starting point for finding the best candidate.)

Virtue signaling loo la was me being nice
TBF and being serious about it a populist isnt what we need either, maybe just abolish the position entirely.
We can always have the head of the civil service have tea with visitors and anyone of any actual importance that visits meets the Thoiseach anyway.

[Eminence Grise]

Well, maybe it's not as nice as it seemed to you, and I say that knowing full well that my referring to Éirigí gunslingers was just a cheap shot (there! again!) for the alliteration.

I suspect there may be a sneaking regard for abolition hiding behind the flippant tea with the taoiseach comment (and if I've misread it, apologies). Would you really rather an unelected mandarin (it would be the Sec Gen to the Govt at the Dept of the Taoiseach, I think, as the de facto head) rather than a president who has gone through the public scrutiny of two selection processes - nomination and election? The potential for conflict of interest would be massive. And to whom would foreign ambassadors present their credentials? To a civil servant would be a breach of diplomatic norms, and insulting. There are so many other pragmatic objections I could come up with. The notion is symptomatic of reactionary ill-thought responses - sometimes well-intentioned, as it may be here; more usually not - that erode trust in, and the legitimacy of, political institutions.

(And don't get me started on whether the tea would Barrys or Lyons or Bewleys - that's a minefield!).

[sbgawa]

I suppose id be happiest if we just had a president who represented everyone by just turning up for the tea parties and keeping their mouth shut.
The problem with Micky D and now Connolly speaking out (maybe she wont to be fair, ill give her a chance) is that people abroad think their opinions represent us and she and Micky D certainly didnt/Dont represent me. When you politicise a ceremonial office its not a good thing.
A candidate from the middle ground would have been nice.....arise President Bertie

[Eminence Grise]

I can't disagree with wanting a president who stays within the confines of the role, though given how loosely that can be defined, it's natural that incumbents will interpret it differently and shape the role to fit. That's why I hope CC will have good advisors who will enable her to speak with authority to and for the nation (not the state) when it's necessary and appropriate.