More on the Presidential Campaign… September 21, 2011
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.trackback
I was thinking today how odd it is that the only two potential candidates at the Presidential Election that I have much sympathy for are in some respects profoundly different, so much so that one is supported by Eoghan Harris and the other – well – clearly isn’t. But there’s no end of danger in positioning ones political choices in relation to where Harris stands, given that he’s spent a lifetime stepping hither and yon, so that in itself isn’t a reason to support or not support someone.
I guess, from my perspective David Norris and Martin McGuinness are – for different reasons – the two most clearly oppositional candidates even if they are fundamentally flawed in respect of that opposition. In fact in that respect they’re curiously alike. Norris has with considerable personal courage spent a lifetime championing rights in a society that wasn’t merely dismissive of those rights but often actively hostile on both the personal and political level. Yet Norris is also locked by virtue of background and position into an Irish establishment and his oppositional aspects aren’t likely to ruffle that establishment overly much, particularly these days.
McGuinness similarly has been oppositional in the sense that he represents a republican and social radical [to varying degrees] impulse which has waxed and waned throughout the society across the 20th century and before and used various vehicles to express itself. But this is an oppositional aspect which has been been focused on the national rather than class, albeit it has often operated as a proxy for class depending on context. The disparity between SF in the North and South is only the most notable current manifestation of this.
So both are flawed and for many the choice they offer from the rest, Davis, Gallagher, Higgins and Mitchell, is no choice at all. though I’ve never seen an election I didn’t want to vote in. No doubt there will be further arguments around these issues in the weeks ahead.
One presumes that McGuinness won’t let the Joe Duffy radio show ‘flash vote’ go to his head, but it might indicate that he’ll do better than expected overall.
And meanwhile the chances of Norris being on the ballot paper recede and this, I think, is a pity. I just can’t work out how he could get the numbers now.
The Irish Times puts it this way:
Last night Mr Norris had the backing of 11 Oireachtas members but was unable to get public commitments from the remaining 16 Independents.
Except he doesn’t really.
Of the 19 Independent TD’s votes in play [excluding Denis Naughten, latterly of FG] four are already taken by McGuinness – those being McGrath, Ming, JHR and Fleming. Mattie McGrath, somewhat quixotically, is supporting Dana – which is a bit like doing something of no import simply to look as if something is being done. That leaves 14. We can, I think it is fair to say, assume neither Noel Grealish or Michael Lowry are hugely keen to support Norris. That leaves 12. So far of those 12, as the Irish Times notes:
Eight TDs are committed to supporting Mr Norris’s nomination. They are: Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Richard Boyd Barrett and Joan Collins from the United Left Alliance, along with Catherine Murphy, Stephen Donnelly, Mick Wallace and Maureen O’Sullivan.
Some interesting omissions there. Where is the other ULA TD? What about Shane Ross? John Halligan? Thomas Pringle?
Anyhow, that means he’s dependent upon the Seanad. There are two groups of Independents in the Seanad, one based around the University elections, of five and one around the Taoiseach’s nominees of 6. Of that 11 he so far….
…can also rely on four nominations from the Seanad with NUI Senators John Crown and Seán Barrett from Trinity College, and Senator Katherine Zappone adding to his own vote.
If he only was supported by the 8 TDs and 4 Senators he currently has then he can’t do it, or rather he’d need to get all the other Senators on his side. And it seems to me, given the complexion of the two groups it’s almost impossible that he might, for the sake of example, get Ronan Mullen to support him, Feargal Quinn, or one or two of the more clearly FG inclined Independent Senators – at least in respect of the latter at this stage.
Perhaps they’ll all surprise us. Perhaps not. Perhaps it’s unkind to suggest that Finian McGrath found nominating McGuinness a means of slicing through this particular Gordian knot.
Perhaps he’ll pull four councils out of the bag, and there’s some rumblings to that effect, but that’s a long shot. Then again, this has already been a remarkable contest and highly unpredictable.
Meanwhile rumor has it that Dana is going to withdraw from the race. Shortest candidacy on record in a Presidential contest? We’ll see.
Shortest name on record in a Presidential contest, I’d have thought.
That too
Latest figures for Norris are 13, most of whom signed today and yesterday:
Richard Boyd Barrett
Joan Collins
Clare Daly
Joe Higgins
Stephen Donnelly
Catherine Murphy
Maureen O Sullivan
Mick Wallace
John Crown
David Norris
Katherine Zappone
Sean D. Barrett
Fiach Mac Conghail
Shane Ross had a meeting with Norris today and he, John Halligan and, um, Michael Lowry are considering the matter. Zappone said she was a supporter of MDH, but would sign in the interests of democracy, which could set an example for other senators. Apparently Seamus Healy has said no, which is intriguing.
There’s also Fingal Country Council, with the outside chance of backing from Carlow, Kilkenny, Laois, and Donegal.
Michael Lowry …. considering the matter
Wait till DN gets to 19 and Lowry opens negotiations with a demand for a presidential commission of inquiry into the cabinet veto of his casino project…..
Seamus Healy has obvious concerns over Norris’s anti-republican tirades as has Thomas Pringle.
sort of like a no vote to european treaties in a way. norris can’t even get 10% in the dail but would get well more than 10% at the ballot box. shows a flaw in our representitive system. its not that representitive.
finian mcgrath was on joe duffy one of the days. said that there may be a senario where a TD could nominate more than once that he was waiting for clarification. was under the impression myself that they could only nominate one but bit of hope in the doubt for norris supporters maybe.
Norris is more likely to make it through the Councils, though I still think that the likelihood is that the larger political parties will successfully keep him off the ballot. It is, of course, a farcically undemocratic situation where the opinion poll front runner isn’t allowed to participate in the election.
I would not vote for Norris, mind you, but at least he has a record of doing a few useful things, which is more than I can say for any of the rest of them.
It’ll go right to the wire, either way. I suspect the main parties are changing their attitude. For one thing, there’s a significant section (hard to say exactly how many) of Norris supporters who intend to either not vote or to spoil their vote in protest. Allowing him on the ballot would bring perhaps thousands of extra votes back into the valid poll, crucial votes which would more likely transfer to Higgins (or even Mitchell?) than to McGuinness. Worst case scenario Norris wins, but I think FG/LP/FF would settle for that rather than a President McGuinness.
Despite banging on about Norris all the time, I’m more naturally a supporter of MDH. My anger has been roused by the treatment Norris has been subjected to: being shut out by the Dail parties and snubbed by the county councils, and the persistant and suspicious media obsession with his sexual morality rather than any issues relevant to the presidency (and incidentally, DN’s comments on the age of consent have been given as Seamus Healy’s reason for not backing him). I might not even vote for him, but he really should be on the ballot for there to be any sense of fairness
second guessing here but Healy would be more republican than other ULA members could that explain it?
How come the other 4 ULAs can nominate a person who crossed a picket line in Nov. 2009?Could this be why as well?
Actually where is Mark P when you need him?Cosying up to stike breakers?
Norris never approached Dublin City Council to name one, nor South Dublin CC or DunLaoghaire Rathdown CC to my knowledge – 3 bodies I expect would have provided him with the required 3 along with Fingal
None of the ULA TDs are supporting Norris. They are nominating him out of respect for basic democratic principles. He has a right to stand, quite independently of whether his policies are agreeable.
I overheard a Dublin City Councillor earlier today stating that Norris was indeed lobbying for her vote in the Council.
I think he might yet pull it out of the bag.
Which to my mind would make the MMG candidacy a more serious affair. At the moment I’d say MDH will win with a handy margin, with MMG pulling a better vote than GM (who actually likes that man?), but Norris could throw that scenario to the wind.
I personally rate the Shinners as the most hypocritical party in the country – and that’s some achievement, but MMG is an affable character who I’d lose no sleep over getting the gig – even if I’d never vote for him in a million years. The fact that it would send Gay Byrne into apoplexy even lends the prospect some appeal.
It really does make the outcome a lot more unpredictable, though perhaps FGers might flock to DN as part of an anyone but MMG campaign, particularly if GM bombs – so to speak – on the campaign trail. I think you’re right, DN is a threat to Higgins. No question about it.
a farcically undemocratic situation
True enough, but what would you put in place of the current system? 100,000 signatures? in the facebook age that would just end in Jedward on the ballot paper……
Primaries and caucuses?
I’d have it so that anyone who wants to can stand for election. You know, just as we do in Dail and Council elections. And if people vote for Jedward, well they couldn’t be any worse than the lot who are currently on the ballot.
(Actually, I’d abolish the office, but if we have to have one..)
surpriced more people arn’t talking about abolishing it similar to the seanad conversation people where having a while back. did labour promise some sort of constitutional convention in the first few months. it probably won’t happen but are groups prepareing for it in case it does, maybe spreading actual power between the 3 houses may be better than our current system maybe abolishing everything is the way to go.
In response to a request for help in nominating David Norris, Ivana Bacik mentioned yesterday that…
“Michael D Higgins has made it clear in his speeches that he considers the present system of nomination to be flawed and that there should be an avenue for nominations other than through TDs, Senators and Councillors. He has suggested that the forthcoming Constitutional Convention should address the issue, and I support this idea.”
So, it’s still officially on the agenda.
The Joe Duffy poll scared the daylights out of the RTE establishment (there wouldn’t have been a poll if they thought McGuinness would win). So now they have decided that a gay is less scary a prospect than a leftie. There is no question but that Norris will be on the ballot paper as the controllers are afraid the existing crop of candidates won’t keep McGuinness out.
They still haven’t copped on to the fact that the more attacks on McGuinness (and they are now running on every ‘news’ programme), the more people will support him.
Wait, who is this leftie you mention?
It’s all relative Mark…
McGuinness has a right wing record in office even relative to the rest of the field.
No argument from me about that Mark, I was just pointing out that from the perspective of the RTE establishment he appears as a Leftist, which of course says more about them than it does about him.
T’hey still haven’t copped on to the fact that the more attacks on McGuinness (and they are now running on every ‘news’ programme), the more people will support him.’
Well, yes…and no. The core anti-provo vote will be mobilised and the more attention on the mechanics of the armed struggle (as opposed to the happy-clappy, long road to peace shite) will revive all sorts of questions about McGuinness. There will be a marked age gap there though- over 40s against and under 25s for.
That being said Norris will take votes from Higgins and you just don’t know where the residual FF vote will go.
McGuinness-Sinn Fein are to the left of Mitchell-FG, Higgins-Labour, the bald millionaire guy and your woman who does charity work for Denis O’Brien. Of course he’s not prolier than thou but who is?
I don’t think I’ve ever heard Marty say anything that struck me as remotely ‘socialist’ or even ‘social democrat’ – but perhaps someone could supply a quote or two?
Their progamme makes reference to a “32-County democratic socialist republic”. Only a West Brit would want anything more substantial than that.
He is a member of Sinn Fein and their policies are socialist.
(Now we can have the debate on how much more socialist than SF others, not in the election, are.)
This leaves me with a bit of a conundrum. Is Feadog so stupid that he actually believes this idiocy? Or is he simply dishonest?
Let’s be blunt about this. Nobody is looking for an argument about whether some group or other is “more socialist” than Sinn Fein. It would be like arguing about whether some rock is heavier than helium. Sinn Fein aren’t socialist or a little bit socialist. They are a right wing party, in a right wing government, implementing right wing policies.
Martin McGuinness is an advocate for PFI and PPP and the biggest privatiser currently active in Irish politics. Anyone who tries to defend him from a left wing position is stupid, dishonest or both. My general assumption is both.
Why don’t you give it a rest eh?
But in all fairness to Feadog, Mark P, all parties to the right of the SP aren’t socialist or a little bit socialist – by your lights. I mean that’s basic to your politics. So to berate Feadog for stupidity, or idiocy or dishonesty or whatever is beside the point. As well as being needlessly discourteous and… well… why would you bother being so blatantly unpleasant to another person?
All it demonstrates is that you’re being blatantly unpleasant, sneering and condescending. Achieves nothing and for people like myself who have considerable respect for the SP it makes us uneasy.
I know you’re a sound and thoughtful person off line. I just don’t get why you think it’s appropriate to be so hectoring online [and particularly in a contest where the SP has no horse in the race]?
Firstly, it is rarely a good idea to post on the internet after you stumble home from the pub. I apologise to Feadog for the aggressive and insulting tone.
Secondly, I stand absolutely by the core sentiments I wrapped in that aggressive and insulting tone. Sinn Fein are in government. Martin McGuinness is in government. They have a record in power, and that record is unremittingly right wing. Sinn Fein are privatisers and hatchetmen for neoliberalism. McGuinness has been their most prominent and enthusiastic figure in that regard. This fact cannot be avoided, ignored or talked around. It is the central reality of Sinn Fein.
For anyone to argue that Sinn Fein or McGuinness are socialist or left wing, requires either a very fundamental misunderstanding of that party and its record and of left wing ideas, or it requires a lack of regard for accuracy. The two, of course, are not mutually exclusive. I do not believe, for instance, that one must choose merely one of fool and knave when assessing John Waters, who also believes that McGuinness is a left wing candidate.
On the broader points raised by WorldbyStorm:
1) I’ve said to you before that I see various reformist currents as part of the same broad movement. The closest thing we have in Ireland at the moment is probably the People Before Profit Alliance or the Workers Party. In previous generations there was the Labour left. In other countries more substantial forces exist. I am not putting forward an argument that everyone to the right of the Socialist Party is beyond the pale. I am putting forward an argument that none of the currently mainstream parties in Ireland are remotely left wing.
Once upon a time, some contributors here used to regularly argue with me about this, claiming that I was being sectarian towards the Greens, Labour and Sinn Fein. Then it was Labour and Sinn Fein. Now it’s Sinn Fein.
I do actually believe that this is important, and that for the left in Ireland to make reasonable strategic decisions, it first has to understand who our friends and enemies are.
2) I make no apologies for in general having zero interest in the feelings of activists for right wing parties. I don’t have any fellow feeling for them as political activists or as people with an interest in politics. They are actively working to make the world a worse place, and I treat them as such. If I am polite or even semi-polite to them, it is purely for the benefit of others.
There are perhaps other people here who think that it’s important to be polite at all or most times and indeed that politeness has some moral benefit in and of itself. I disagree.
@MarkP
“the left in Ireland to make reasonable strategic decisions, it first has to understand who our friends and enemies are.”
Well that’s great for “the left” and by “left” you mean your party I assume. While when you are trying to establish a war of credentials you’re alienating people who haven’t read the same books as you.
Perhaps “the left” should address its language?
http://owenjones.org/2011/02/06/the-left-needs-to-watch-its-language/
We’re heading into the fourth or fifth austerity budget of cuts and despite some electoral gains at the polls “the left” has not made gains in building anything. Turnout for socialist protest has been poor in comparison with other countries (even the Occupy Wall St protest!!). The turnout at public meetings have been similarly low and the people hosting the meetings and protests will blame everyone else but themselves.
There are perhaps other people here who think that it’s important to be polite at all or most times and indeed that politeness has some moral benefit in and of itself. I disagree.
Well, it’s kind of a humanity thing
Mark P
If you were only insulting and aggressive when you stumble home from the pub then I would say that you need to consider your drinking habits. But I don’t think it’s that. If WBS says that you’re a sound and thoughtful person off line thenI have no reason to disbelieve him, but your online persona doesn’t really reflect that.
I won’t even attempt to challenge your unremitting hostility to Sinn Fein. I have neither the time nor inclination to be subjected to an onslaught which will leave me with the choice of either submitting to the superiority of your ideological position or just leaving it and have you claim yet another political victory for the one true faith.
Did you ever stop to think that other contributors have stopped arguing with you about being ‘sectarian’ (your word, not mine) towards others precisely because you are relentless? There is not the remotest possibility of you accepting any view which is even slightly at variance with that of the SP ? Most other contributors are willing to engage in a more open way and consider the views of others and maybe even concede the possibility of others having a point. You on the other hand, seem to be more interested in imposing your world view with grip of steel.
You can sometimes be interesting, entertaining and even enlightening (the latter rarely enough admittedly), but don’t take my failure to challenge some of your ranting as an endorsement of it.
“Is Feadog so stupid that he actually believes this idiocy? Or is he simply dishonest?”
I’d go with stupid – and then you don’t have to respond to content and can feel safe and smug in your righteousness.
I think that perhaps you’ve misunderstood a few of the statements in my last comment, dilettante.
I wasn’t ascribing any general habit of making snide or aggressive comments to booze. Nor was I making any apology for making abrasive comments on a relatively regularly basis. I was apologising to Feadog for one particular unnecessarily confrontational and insulting post. No more.
If you are a committed supporter of a right wing party like Sinn Fein, I want you to find me abrasive and unpleasant. If you find my company convivial, then I’m doing something wrong. The same goes for activists for Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, the Greens and Labour. Right wing party activists are people who are actively trying to make the world a worse place and I have no desire to get along with them or to wrongly give the impression that I’m interested in a mutually respectful dialogue.
I restrain myself, with an occasional lapse, from simply abusing such people because (a) it can be counterproductive in terms of annoying people whose opinions I am actually interested in and (b) this site belongs to WorldbyStorm (and Co.) and consequently he gets to decide what is and is not acceptable. But there’s a distinction between simple abuse and taking a hard line against someone’s argument.
I think that you may also have misunderstand the part of my comment where I talked about people arguing against dismissal of Labour, the Greens and Sinn Fein. People in fact still do argue Sinn Fein’s corner, whether you personally do or not. What’s changed is not that nobody disagrees with me, but that few people are willing to take up the cudgels for the Greens or Labour any more. Their record in government has seen to that. Fortunately for Sinn Fein, a combination of the border and an accident of Dail arithmetic after the 2007 election means that quite a few more people on the left still place some hope in them.
AlanRouge:
No, I don’t mean just my party when I talk about “the left”. I think that in an Irish context the term covers a range of different organisations, from anarchist groups across to individual social democrats. That still means that I think that the left is a lot smaller than people who throw in some combination of SF, Labour or the Greens, but it is certainly not limited to the Socialist Party.
You yourself have circumscribed the definition of left and right so that the former is effectively tightly drawn around your own political vehicle of choice [and a few tokenistic others] and the former is everyone else, with no regard at all for a multitude of factors which most of us tend to believe impact on those defintions and how they play out. On a political level I get entirely why you might want to present the world in this way, but that just makes you seem as cynically political as anyone else.
But I think dilettante is correct, You shouldn’t consider that lack of engagement with you signals agreement. In certain areas it signals lack of interest in engaging with you. That’s a pity because I’m not simply plamasing you in my earlier comments…
And the thing is your statement above just doesn’t ring true for many of us… “activists for Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, the Greens and Labour. Right wing party activists are people who are actively trying to make the world a worse place ” That’s simply not our lived experience on campaigns, in our communities, etc. To most of us there’s a much broader area defined as ‘left’, from pale pink through to deepest red or red and black and most of us recognise that in politics as in life there are always paradoxes, always contradictions, ambiguities and grey areas.
But be that as it may I want to stress going out of this that there is no tolerance for ‘abuse’, no virtue in being ‘abrasive and unpleasant’ on here. We won’t have activists or members or just simply supporters of parties that you describe as ‘right-wing’ chased away from the CLR simply because you or anyone defines them as ‘right wing’.
And there’ll be no toleration of sailing close to the wind either in that respect.
I recommend the following anti-Stalin text on rudeness :
“Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a [minor] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance.”
It is extracted from Lenin’s Testament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin%27s_Testament
Looking back with 20/20 vision, conferred by hindsight, the author was on to something.
@Rockroots and Feadog,
Whether or not SF are a socialist party is another question: I was wondering had Marty himself ever verbalised any such tendency? I’ve never heard it, and I was just asking if anyone else had.
Sinn Fein are a right-wing party. But the poorer Sinn Fein members, who are ‘Republicans’, must start to insist on better conditions/environments/occupations for ‘THEMSELVES’; instead of aiding the big investors in the big (S.F.) investors’ quest to transform any one locale (for themselves).
To me Provisional Sinn Fein is still a movement and populist, the heart and soul of PSF still has to be won by either its left or right.So far the North is moving right and the south surprisingly to the left.The various splitters and dissidents in the south seems to have moped up those of the right and center.Eirigi should re-enter PSF and push it over the line to the left or maybe they feel / know this wont be allowed to happen.But as it stands I tend to agree that PSF is in no way a left party.Personally I don’t know if I’ll vote Higgins or Norris.
(b) this site belongs to WorldbyStorm (and Co.) and consequently he gets to decide what is and is not acceptable
Interesting defence of the rights conferred by property there – especially considering our disagreement the last time we met
Fair point.
I suppose I could rephrase in different terms: I like the guy and don’t want to give him indigestion. Or perhaps in more practical terms: He can ban people from posting.
@hal – you dont thin SF is left wing but will consider voting David Norris?
Is Norris a lefty?
The horror of the establishment at the entry of McGuinness who has an nomination and could possibly win this election is not surprising. Their attempts to have Norris in the race at all costs shows how opportunistic their comments on putting the safety of children first are.
They are so caught up in the moral high ground they claim to occupy that they are prepared to put an apologist for child rape as the first citizen of this country.
Ghandi, you’re raising this again? The “child” in question was 6 months below the legal age of consent. In a world of black and white morality of course he was underage, but to refer to him as a child is misleading. I’m afraid you’ll need to come up with better arguments than that against the socially liberal agenda which is clearly your problem with Norris’ candidature.
Norris’s lover was in his 40′s the child was 15, black & white to me and to the majority of people.
Norris does’nt believe in an age of consent in any event.
You were objecting to Norris here on CLR in June [1] a full 2 months before the story about his ex-partner was in the news [2].
You are being disingenuous in raising this particular issue as part of some sort of moral crusade against Norris in particular and against the socially liberal agenda in general.
[1] http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/meanwhile-back-at-the-presidential-election-campaign/
[2] http://www.independent.ie/national-news/israel-denies-leaking-clemency-plea-letter-2837852.html
All Norris has said in relation to an age of consent is that there should be an application of the principle of consent on the issue – which ironically isn’t far removed from the position recommended by the Joint Committee on Child Protection
“Norris’s lover was in his 40′s the child was 15, black & white to me and to the majority of people”
Moussa was 15, Hawi was 30.
Now they were still in a relationship when Hawi was 40, but Moussa was (unsurprisingly) 25. Not quite so black and white.
Moussa was 15, Hawi was 30.
Black & White to me, predatory grooming and rape
Apologies –
Moussa was 15, Hawi was 40.
Now they were still in a relationship when Hawi was 50, but Moussa was (unsurprisingly) 25. Not quite so black and white.
The core issue is whether there was consent in the relationship – if the relationship was illegal and coercive, then it warrants a different sentance to a relationship which was illegal and consensual (in the extra-legal sense). Norris has made it clear that he didn’t approve of the relationship, and he didn’t defend it, but vouching for the character of Hawi in a scenario where the relationship between Hawi and Moussa appears to have been consensual over a long period, might be a mistake, but an understandable one.
How do you ‘groom’ someone for a 12 year relationship?
LATC
“people like Haw Or just “people”? Freudian slip there Ghandi”
No slip, Hawi pleaded guilty to child rape under its legal defination of Statutory Rape full stop.
“The tone of this moral crusade has more in common with something of the (religious) Right than of the Left”.
This has nothing to do with right or left nor is it a moral crusade, you have previously conceded that Norris is not on the left, its about the protection of children.
Ghandi, my comment about Rightist morality was not in relation to Norris and well you know it. You’re doing a great job of slipping and weaving here but frankly it’s not very convincing.
You pitch the argument as one of child protection whereas your opening salvo against Norris back in May was the following:
“How would him winning boost the Left. Show me any statements he has made anywhere wihich place him on the side of Workers?
Norris is neither a Socialist nor a Republican, someone who wanted to put gates on his inner city street to keep the locals out.
A supporter of rejoining the Commonwealth and who reffered to those who fought for Irish Independance as Terrorists. A fully fledged supporter of Israels right to exterminate the Palestian people. ”
Make your mind up, what is it that you object to? Rather than picking the current populist and opportunist hook upon which to sling your prejudices.
My simple question at that time to you was to show me where he was a Republican or Socialist and was therefore worthy of support from Republican Left, and you could’nt. It’ sbeen quite clear that I have never been a supporter of his for a variety of reasons.
It’s clear now why he withdrew support from Israel as can be seen from the letter to the Israeli Court.
Had I know then what we all know now but some refuse to recognise, I would have been doubly opposed to him, nothing to do with populist arguments.
Unlike yourself he lives on Summerhill in my constituency, one of the most deprived areas in this country yet he has never involved himself in the difficulties ordinary people have faced. There is scarely a family that has not been affected by heroin & cocaine yet he wants to legalise them, perhaps if he came down from his Joycean tower and went to Lourdes or O’Tooles he wold see the effects of drugs on the community he lives in.
“My simple question at that time to you was to show me where he was a Republican or Socialist and was therefore worthy of support from Republican Left, and you could’nt.”
And my simple answer to you at the time was that the Left should support him, in the absense of a Left candidate of its own, on the basis of a cross-class socially progressive platform.
Allister
“Apologies – Moussa was 15, Hawi was 40″, as I said originally.
We don’t know when the relationship started only when he was caught. The reason we have the age of consent is to stop people like Hawi from taking advantage of children.
If it was your son would you have the same view, I doubt it, the reality is that Noriis did’nt see anything wrong with it and as far as I’m concerned still does’nt.
Well, we do know that Moussa confirms Hawi’s timeline. The same man who continued the relationship for 12 years or whatever – which doesn’t really tally with the child predator line.
Also – we do know that Norris disapproved. That’s the reality, because it’s in the public domain – regardless of your personal opinion, so let’s not pretend otherwise.
“people like Hawi”
Or just “people”? Freudian slip there Ghandi?
The tone of this moral crusade has more in common with something of the (religious) Right than of the Left.
Speaking of which, I see IELB has posted a leaflet from the DRM which follows a similar line to the one Ghandi is taking:
http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/leaflet-calling-for-the-withdrawal-of-senator-david-norris-from-political-life-democratic-right-movement/
As IELB says, not pretty.
If Malachy posts about Norris’s past, then he must accept truthful comment on his own past actions including his active friendship with known drug dealers. Norris has a lot to answer for politically but hidden homophobia from a fundamentalist bigot is fair game for reply.
Sadly, as we all comment on the poor or unacceptable politics of the expected candidates, the fact remains that at a time of economic crisis and sustained attacks on peoples lives,the left could not provide a candidate. shame on us all.
I agree entirely with your last point.
All I’m asking is that you tone down your responses and try to keep it issue led.
@EamonnDublin,
agree with you about how sad it is that the left cant put forward a candidate
electoral politics count and cant be replaced by activism alone.
Until the left accepts that its electoral weakness is a demonstration of how marginal it it then there will be no progress.
If people agree with you they vote with you. Simple as that. The record is not great but what is being done to change it.
An apologist for child rape Malachy??? Is the Pope running? Are Catholic priests running?
Just read your piece about drug dealers Malachy. Sure you would know all about them as you were working with Fats for years. Back to your youth Defence hole now….
ED, that’s ou of order. If you have a criticism of his thoughts fair enough, but play the ball not the man.
The points I raised in June are still relevant and re-enforced by what later emerged, and no doubt by what will further emerge if he should end up in the race.
Allister
Norris’s view on the age of consent when put in the context of the Helen Lucy Burke interview and the letter to the Israeli Court are a long way from teh JCCP position, which was dealing with teenagers in or around the same age.
The reported HLB quote which Norris claims misrepresented his view, and she can’t support the authenticity of?
And what exactly in the court letter contradicts the Committee’s recommendations?
Specifics please.
I think you point Alastair to a genuine issue here. Norris’ public statements differ from HLBs. I don’t think that’s an unimportant distinction. And I also think you’re correct re the Committee.
Again the Left is wasting time and energy on debating the rights and wrongs of Norris’s sexual preferences. Back to the economy and nothing he has said goes against the ruling orthodoxy that the working class should suffer for the mistakes made by the financial elite in Ireland. So why should anyone on the Left care about his candidancy?
“So why should anyone on the Left care about his candidancy?”
From an economistic perspective you are correct of course. But society consists of more than the economy, and victories gained against conservatism and the establishment in the social field are victories that are still worth winning.
What could the Left do that would not involve wasting time and energy?
Come forth with an agreed candidate for the Presidential Election that would campaign against the Coalitions economic policies. I am not convinced that ULA did all they could have done to make that happen.
Norris is an unpredictable, self-publicist, ego manic, wrongheaded, arrogant, mickey obsessed (by this I don’t mean Gay, rather he is obsessed with mickeys), with not a coherent economic thought in his head troubled man. That said he might be the best choice for President if Michael D’s campaign does not getting moving as broad one separate from the sell-out Labour Party.
‘A fully fledged supporter of Israels right to exterminate the Palestian people.’
In the case of Norris, that is simply not true.
I object to his support for under-age sex but Norris’s friend and sometime partner is actually a pro-Palestinian activist.
He points out in teh letter to teh israeli High ourt how he was a great friiend of Isreal and points out how he raised money for various Israeli causes. His support for Palestine only came afetr teh Israeli High Court apparently rejected his overtures.
too many typos in that, hit the return button too quick.
He points out in the letter to the Israeli High Court how he was a great friiend of Israel and points out how he raised money for various Israeli causes. His support for Palestine only came after the Israeli High Court apparently rejected his overtures
Norris got dogs-abuse for signing some pro-Palestine thing a few years ago. His ex-partner has been jailed, beaten up and stood in front of Isreali troops at settlements in support of Palestinians.
Also, people have been known to change their minds about politics. Some people join multiple political parties before they find the right one for instance.
On the matter of another candidate. McGuinness says he left the IRA in 1974. He also says that he was never involved, even indirectly, in killing anybody. He does admit to taking part in gunbattles but obviously must not have managed to shoot anyone. Was he a really shite IRA man then?
Former H-Block prisoner Anthony McIntyre posts on the McGuinness issue here. (McIntyre actually was in the IRA!).
http://thepensivequill.am/2011/09/positioning-for-presidency.html
Ed Moloney also posting on Marty’s memory here
http://thebrokenelbow.com/2011/09/17/martin-mcguinness-some-questions-to-ask-answer/
I missed the RTE ‘News’ at One. Who was doing today’s attack on McGuinness and was there a new angle?
And, any word who will be the Establishment attack-dog on the Late Late Show?
Patsy Gillespie’s daughter will be on, follwed by Joanne Mather’s husband and Caroline Moreland’s sisters. The brother of a Pakistani tea-boy is being flown to take part as well. Plus a number of IRSP members who will tell the story of how Patsy O’Hara was on the run for his life when he was lifted. And who he was on the run from. Some of the Tyrone IRA, who were promised the war would be upped dramatically in 1987 will be in the audience.
The star guest is Michael Oatley, who will testify to what fantastic company Martin is, as he has known him for over 30 years.
But it would be very establishment to ask questions about any of that wouldn’ it?
reference caroline moreland’s killing there’s a post here on ed moloney’s blog about it. a careful reading suggests marty has some questions to answer, not just about her killing about who in the IRA wanted to bury her body secretly, i.e. disappear her, after she was shot. here it is: http://thebrokenelbow.com/2011/04/06/martin-mcguinness-informers-the-media-and-why-dissident-republicans-still-kill-people/
Yes, it would serve only the interests of the Establishment (though if you prefer: the cosy cartel; the ruling elite; the financial class; the bourgeoisie; the owning class.
Feadog, you might be able to enlighten us as to the establishment conspiracy here
http://caroline-moreland.gonetoosoon.org/
It’s not a conspiracy. I would define the Establishment as those elements in a society who control and own it for their own vested interest. These elements include the financiers, the politicians, the church, the commentators. The essential ingredient is that they don’t need to liaise with each other as each acts in the collective interest instinctively. For example, the bishop isn’t told to give a homily on selfishness when there is talk of wage unrest; the commentator/journalist isn’t instructed to attack any attempt by the workers to put forward a viewpoint/candidate. They act in concert as that is how their interest is served. True, they attended the same schools, marry among themselves, play the same sports, worship at the same shrines and assimilate into a collective identity.
And, if you haven’t noticed from my tone, I hate them and will do anything to topple them.
Sometimes you even find interesting things on politics.ie- how’s this for Martin’s tolerence of debate?
‘Originally Posted by Cruimh
Wasn’t one of them in there because he was carrying a gun because he had been told the Provos were planning to assasinate him ?
Yeah, Patsy O’Hara robbed a gunshop in Donegal I believe, not to wage war against the British Army, but to protect himself from the provisional IRA. They attacked him and beat him, they called him and Mickey Devine hoods etc and they treated INLA prisoners like dirt. In fact after the hungerstrikes one Easter, when the PIRA were reading out the roll of honour, they neglected to mention the 3 INLA men who had died on hungerstrike. Martin McGuinness always hated the IRSM, he viewed them as a threat to his hegemony and fiefdom basically.’
Terry, perhaps it might be better than posting five or six random comments to shape one basic one which incorporates the above points where you seek to criticise McGuinness/IRA and indeed Sinn Féin? No? Otherwise it just seems like you’re close to trolling and are more interested in dominating the thread than actually seeking engagement with others who might take a different view.
And by the way, if someone were singing McGuinness’s praises in this way I’d have precisely the same problem with it.
No, I’m actually going to vote for him! (well, not really) Just wary of how any criticism of McGuinness is percieved as ‘establishment’ or Dublin 4 bias. He says so himself.
But if Norris has questions to answer, if Gay Mitchel has questions to answer about his right-wing views, if Michael D was a commie or something, thats all fair game. Nobody who is over the age of 20 thinks McGuiness left the IRA in 1974. Therefore thats a lie. Therefore lets discuss it. I’ll stop posting all that other stuff, though McIntyre and Moloney raise valid points in my view. McGuiness says talk about his role as a peacemaker, fair enough, but that is since 1994 (?)- what about the career before then, that elevated him to where he could become a ‘peacemaker.’
Final point- he has never won a parliamentary seat for his home town. In every election during the war years he was trounced by the SDLP. That’s why SF moved him to Mid-Ulster. So what about the mandate? He never even got one from the Bogside.
“Nobody who is over the age of 20 thinks McGuiness left the IRA in 1974. Therefore thats a lie.”
I wondered what the definition of a lie is.
people are still going to jail for shit that happened during the conflict. mcgeough price corry in there at the moment. shinners either failed to sort it out or didn’t bother in the context that to write a line under what they did would be to write a line under what the brits did. i.e no chance ever of an investigation into the many many cases of colusion out there or thats giving the SF leadership to much credit but thousands of people when to jail for the RA feck all for the british security forces, getting a light shone on that i’d say would be a big thing. for that or the simpe reason of not wanting to go to jail, guessing why thats why he’s not telling all.
some people demand that the comander in chief of the british armed forces is the symbolic head of one part of ireland with out asking any questions of her habit of pinning medals on mercennaries. maybe living in that culture he doesn’t see the problem
some of the denials are a bit much but so what. its built on the semantics at the start of negotiations. the body politic made a big deal at the start of the peace process about not talking to terrorists. so to move things forward people constructed a persona.
I should also say that Pearse Doherty would have been an excellent candidate, particuarly for expressing discentant at the IMF etc.
He is in fact too young
In a way being neither blindly loyal to SF nor blindly antagonistic, and I’m not suggesting you are either Terry, it seems to me more interesting questions are whether you think – given the criticisms you channel, he’s fit to run, and albeit given that this is less likely, fit to occupy the office of President?
By the way, while you’re correct McGuinness never won a parliamentary seat in Foyle he did win as an absentionist in the Assembly in 1982 for Londonderry. He was unsuccessful in Folye in 83, 87 and 92 for Westminster [abstentionist] but was elected to the Forum in 1996 for Foyle.
But who was he running against for the parliamentary seat? Why John Hume! [and the switch to Mid-Ulster might well have been as a sop to Hume given the peace process - who knows?].
He also was elected in 97 for Mid Ulster.
So perhaps that’s not quite a dismal a record as you appear to suggest and he clearly had some level of a mandate.
As regards the rest? I’ve always presumed McGuinness was a member of the IRA for longer than he said, but in a way it’s hardly the most momentous issue one way or another. Whether it’s a lie or a convenient fiction given the nature of the peace process – and the peace process has been built on such fictions from the start – doesn’t really exercise me either.
Blood on his hands? No doubt about it, indirectly or otherwise. But you and I know that that’s something that’s far from restricted to his party and yet hasn’t been an impediment to others both in the distant and recent past.
So, yes, of course, you’re correct, criticisms aren’t simply D4ishness, but as I said in the previous post are they of a nature to see him not be eligible for the contest or the actual prize? I’m not convinced, or not entirely [in fact I thought alastair's summation was fairly sound in that regard, even if I wouldn't be as cynical as he].
On a slight tangent, I just don’t think the Hogan, Shatter etc attacks are much use to FG – for one thing they’re clearly not certain as to what tone to take. But I’m intrigued that they’re making them at this stage.
I’m surprised about them letting Shatter speak out against McGuinness , given that he has previously defended horrific acts by the Israelis.
I presume FG are trying to stoke up moral outrage at McGuinness to give Mitchell a profile as the most anti McGuinness candidate.
Given that the opinion poll this evening puts Mitchell behind every other candidate except Dana, there’s a rather large hole in that FG strategy.
is it a tundering disgrace moment.
the only logic yeah to get some anti SF vote. thats why FF will come back against them. a populist party can’t have breakfast lunch dinner and tea on one extreame.
LATC and Ghandi. Surely there’s a simple way to sort this out. What does the CEC say?
Joe, I don’t think the CEC made a statement yet. At the Dublin regional meeting last Thursday (15 Sep) it was conveyed that a statement would be forthcoming when it was finally clear what candidates would be contesting the election. This was before Norris’ reentry and McGuinness’ candidacy, so things were still in a state of flux at that time. If and when the party decides to lend its support to any of the candidates, which it might not of course, then of course we’ll follow the democratic centralist decision and amend our collective positions accordingly. No individual is bigger than the party of course.
Joe the facts don’t change regardless of what anyone says.
Its a sticky situation =)
I see Cllr Davy Walsh of the WP voted for the Norris nomination in Waterford City Council.
Good to see.
I would have prefered an anti-IMF-NAMA candidate from the left. Unfortunately there is none. Higgins is a govt candidate and Norris is an upper class dillitante.
Therefore we have McGuinness. I would take a similair view to Anthony McIntyre. McGuinness is running as a statesman and peacemaker (and cliaming that visiting the White House proves that- what war criminal hasn’t been in the White House?). To justify his peacemaking, McGuinness claims he left the IRA in 1974 and then spent the next 30 years trying to bring about peace. In fact he led an unsuccessful armed struggle, which caused immense suffering to uninvolved civilians (lets ignore ‘legitimate targets’ for the cuase of argument). This war failed. But even while he was in contact with British intelligence in the late 1980s, McGuinness urged men and women to join the IRA and to kill, or be killed, for a something he knew was not on the cards. He is now a very successful minister and yes, a statesman, but he is running on a fiction. It is justified to call him out on this fiction. He did not leave the IRA in 1974, he led it for long periods. And before someone says ‘what about the Brits, the loyalists, Bush, Blair, Thatcher’ etc, none of them are running for president.
It is not being a ‘west brit’ to criticise McGuinness, or to suggest that his version of the last 40 years is faulty. His role in Derry has been criticised by as diverse as the IRSP and the SDLP; he was certainly not peacemaking for long period of his life. And there is no one else in the race to whom these questions apply.
I would have considered an SF candidate who ran on the economic/social issues and was not trying to hide a huge chunk of their career.
First up, if you simply don’t want to vote for him because he’s insufficiently left wing that’s grand. Would I have preferred a left candidate? Well, in truth I can’t see any way there could have been one so I’m not that fussed. Moreover this is the Presidency, and while I can tell you who I don’t want in it at all costs – a certain GM, for the rest I’ll live whoever rises (or falls) to the top. I kind of see this as an itneresting event.
But, as regards the rest I think we need to unpack a lot of assumptions about him.
Firstly, and most importnatly, he doesn’t appear to have renouced what the IRA did post 1974 whatever about his dubious claim he wasn’t a member subsequently and I think there might be good reasons for him, even at this point, to be ambiguous about that issue.
Secondly, yes, he didn’t renounce them in the late 1980s, but I think its simplistic – whatever view one takes of his actions during the peace process period and before – to argue that he should have if he genuinely thought that bringing the IRA in from an armed stance was the right thing to do to have renounced it. That would make no sense at all, either politically, tactically – and in the broader sense ehtically if he sought to ultmately minimise or end armed struggle. Indeed had he done the opposite and left the RM that would have almost guaranteed the primacy subsequently of those who didn’t agree with moves towards cessations etc.
One can argue for absolute truth or one can argue for a pragmatism however cynical or otherwise, but to argue for the former is to shut down the possibility that the conflict could have been brought to a relative resolution – indeed I think personally that there’s a fair bit of bad faith on the part of some who do so knowing precisely how unrealistic that was.
And therein lies the paradox of all this. If McIntyre, or whoever, didn’t want an armed struggle – but to remain in opposition to the British state – they know that there would still be a conflict lingering on today in much sharper form. No one who knows the history of the OIRA, and in particular the INLA split, would see that as a sensible or even feasible strategy. Just look at the ETA experience to see how difficult it is to bring armed struggles to a close – and that’s in a society which is arguably more united than the North is.
As for his role in Derry, well naturally the IRSP and the SDLP are going to criticise him. They were and remain his political opponents. And no doubt much of the criticism is justified, but so what? At the end of the day he was one of those who successfully brought a movement to a fully political position that even as late as 1998 almost no-one would believe could have been accomplished. That’s a remarkable achievement and something no other groups, arguably not even FF, managed to do on the same scale – if at all.
There’s another point. Where is the evidence that in 1970 or 1980 any other players in this were willing to move towards a less belligerent stance? Hardly under Roy Mason, or as regards the Shankill butchers period, or in the mid 1980s or whatever? However appalling it is conflicts develop their own momentum and PIRA wasn’t the only one involved. Unionism simply wasn’t prepared to talk to the mildest of nationalists for much of that period. In that circumstance being Republicans, which I think they believe themselves sincerely to be what sense even if they ultimately sought a negotiated settlement did it make to weaken republicanism in advance of that outcome? For republicanism to rescue anything from the wreckage it had to appear as strong and solid as it possibly could be. Again, that can be read as cycnical but it can also be seen as realistic and pragmatic.
There’s another another[!] point. McGuinness is already getting a very very hot time of it. Indeed someone I know who works in politics and would themselves be fairly FG inclined said to me unbidden and with no knowledge of my own politics that they thought he was being hammered ‘unfairly’. Perhaps, perhaps not, but I don’t think there’s any way McG will get through this without these points aired – tomorrows Sindo will be but one hurdle. But Moloney is already writing in today’s IT in actually a fairly balanced piece about precisely these issues.
Yes it’s right to question McGuinness abiut his involvement or otherwise beyond 1974, the trouble is if he says “No I wasn’t involved”, he’ll be accused of lies whereas if he turns round and admits that he was, after all, involved, then it’ll be grist to the mill of the “Ha! I knew it!” brigade. So he’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t…
Where the hypocrisy gets particularly noxious is that the same people who are leading the charge against McGuinness now and pointng to his Provo past are pretty much the same ones who were lauding him and Adams as peacemakers in the GFA process. So if was great that they’d left the Armalite and gelignite behind then, why resurrect it now?
On a completely unpolitical level, one thing about McGuinness is that, if elected, he’d be highly unlikely to use the word “frightfully” in the course of his official duties. Definitely couldn’t say the same about either Norris or Michael D.
But he would say sitcheyation.
A pity ULA could not get their own Pres. candidate on an anti cuts, NO to IMF etc.
But let us not forget Dublin West.
A meeting for all ULA supporters and members who wish to join the campaign will take place in the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Blanchardstown at 8.30pm on Tuesday 27th September.
Ruth Coppinger,is a good fighter
Thank you Mark for your apology. It wasn’t really necessary as after many, many years as a trade union activist and socialist trouble-maker insults roll off me like water off a duck’s back.
Speaking of which; there are three ducks in a row. The one on the right regards the other two as being on the left. The one in the middle recognises that there is a duck to his left and one to his right.
I don’t support McGuinness and Sinn Fein unequivocally, if at all, but as the ULA/SP/Communist Party/Workers Party/SWM didn’t see that an election (any election) is a golden opportunity to put their policies before the people, I will support the leftist candidate – and that’s McGuinness (the candidate to the left of all the others).
Three thoughts on the above. Firstly whatever people think about the utility of courtesy on this site there are five things that aren’t tolerated. If you’re homophobic, misogynistic, racist or fascist, or gratuitiously discourteous to others opinions when they aren’t any of the preceding then that’s out – [I guess we can place trolling in as an aspect of these]. There’s a light enough, but firm, moderation on here.
There’s plenty of space on t’interweb for any form of interaction one wants but that’d be a real pity though since I value Mark P’s voice and everyone else whose contributing here. But I don’t want anyone putting off people who take the time and effort , and frankly a certain degree of courage because for some it’s not easy or trivial to put their thoughts out online in public, to comment on this site for the first time. Or second. Of fifteenth.
Secondly, and directly related to the above, there’s a real issue online in general, and sometimes here, of treating others as if their beliefs aren’t sincerely held – whether right or wrong. Linked to that is the apparent belief that they are amenable to change by the online equivalent of being shouted at it. That doesn’t work offline so I’m puzzled why people believe it would work online.
Thirdly, the only certainty that the left should have after the last century and a half is that there is no certainty and we should be deeply dubious about approaches which are exclusive rather than inclusive, which seek to build by dismissing rather than engaging. That too doesn’t work offline. And to be honest a bit of humility and realism by us all – myself included, wouldn’t go amiss when we examine the levels of support for the left in all its incarnations in this society.
I agree 100 per cent – well done again WBS
Amen…WBS
New Poll Figures, Sunday Business Post, to be published Sunday September 25 2011 :
From Politics.ie :
“The last RED C was back in May. The figures are down below. Todays poll is as follows, with change since May:
FG 33 (-8)
Lab 16 (-3)
FF 15 (-1)
SF 15 (+4)
OTH 19 (+7)
GR 2
Comment: A bad poll for FG experiencing the “gone tomorrow” part of their here-today gone-tomorrow growth. A good poll for Sinn Féin experiencing steady growth.”
Visit Politics.ie at your peril – it allows awful abusive rubbish to be published, internet dust.
Possible good news for the SP/ULA Campaign in Dublin West – let’s wait to see a detailed Dublin breakdown.
Presidency :
SBP Poll: Norris 21 Higgins 18 McGuinness 16 Davis 13 mitchell 13 Gallagher 11 Dana 6
Norris to Win – and no wonder the Fine Gael leadership was not keen on Gay Mitchell, trailing 20 points behind his party’s estimated statewide share!
Think this polls point to Higgins winning if contest tomorrow. McG is seen as the Northern candidate he is – has he stated all he knows about Teebane, Whitecross etc? Not a republican but a tribal leader like Paisley – not a left republican president although still to be admired for some of his actions.
Should make for a very interesting few weeks ahead to see how this poll matches up against subsequent ones.
The cause for a national self-determing Ireland was perhaps destroyed for ever when the founders of the Provisional Republican Movement decided to break from the authentic Republican Movement. As a result we witnessed the demise of the so called ‘stickies’ and another party coming into being namely Republican Sinn Fein.The resulting mess of republicanism added to by the appearance of the IRSP and the 32 County Movement
arose from a united effort by the Dublin political establishment,the British political establishment,and British agents within various wings of so called republicanism.
The major blow was caused by the Provos especially by their sectarianism against Protestant workers at Teebane,etc.,followed by their abandonment of ignoring Stormont and Leinster House and followed by their participation in the latter anti-Irish partitionists institutions.Thus it does not surprise me when I see McGuinness standing for the presidency of the 26 county state.But what will surprise many is if he receives votes from other than provo supporters.For the fact is McGuinnes worked with the British military intelligence since before the initial republican split as well as the southern intelligence group in due course.Even one of his Brit handlers challenged McGuinness some time past to a public debate about his intelligence gathering but the latter declined.But then again there is evidence in a new book on De Valera that he secretly was working with the Brits during his lifetime… Therefore the lundy mentality exists throughout our little island.
If you abandon the conspiracy theories, there might be some valid political points buried in this
[...] things are hotting up in the oul presidential to-an’-fro as that granddaddy of Irish media personalities, Gay “The [...]
As there is no socialist or at least declared leftist candidate, I won’t bother with voting. I’m done with identity politics unless the identity is concretely aligned with the working class first and foremost. I don’t care about skin colour, regligion/non-religion, sex or whatever. A vote needs to go to people who wish to fundamentally transform the economic state and formulate policies which will enable a transformation – not least, promoting sustainable and eco sound policies empowering people and their communities. No party in Ireland has such a platform.
I’d almost perversely vote SF given the utmost amount of pious bullshit spouted by both hard core rightists and leftists. That would be rather pointless and give validity to a vote that wasn’t worth casting in the first place.
This election is just another distraction while those who can take advantage of the economic situation continue to do so. The election is just another superficial image competition and nothing else. It seems like every election is just another image competition while the rabid capitalist agenda continues to steam roller along despite any politician spouting bullshit to the contrary. Nothing ever changes on the fundamental level. Seems like the voting card is just becoming another piece of junk mail.
“A vote needs to go to people who wish to fundamentally transform the economic state and formulate policies which will enable a transformation – not least, promoting sustainable and eco sound policies empowering people and their communities. No party in Ireland has such a platform.”
Actually both the Socialist Party and People before Profit do!
http://www.socialistparty.net/home/about-us
http://www.peoplebeforeprofit.ie/about
Thanks for the links dmfod. I’ll look into their respective positions again, although the PBP seemed more atune to my lines of thinking – sort of.
I should probably add there are no organisational representations above the mason-dixon line that I kinda draw straight across the country starting just above Dublin City. There is some activity in Meath alright, but it ain’t exactly near nor next to me. But that’s my problem.
best
i’d of guessed there’d be a low turn out for this election or that might be easy speculation concidering there was a high turn out at the general election. finding it hard to call how many will do what your doing or not.
for the last few weeks norris has been taken a defencive position. if he gets a bit of elbow room he may at least be making some noises in the regard your talking about, he was in the early days and presume the ula had some conditions beyond fair play for giving there support.
same for mcguinness imo. norris has or had a chance of winning but for the shinners when they get there room to manovour think thats there only goal to be in this election is to make counter points. don’t see what else is in it for them.
Norris seems to be just a liberal with cultural interests. As far as I know he has siad little of any substance on economic matters. On a personal basis he seems a decent person.
But that is not enough for my vote. He is not a leftist and is not opposed to the IMF/EU dictats.
The weakness of Sinn Fein for me is their willingness to implement tory cust in the North and a fear that if this was the price of a mfew ministerial seats they would do teh same in the South.
Given that McG is the only candidate that challenges the IMF/EU and every vote for him will be seen it that light.I would add that every “concession” (interest rates etc.) has been got because of action on the street esp. by the Greeks and not by negotiation.
So paradoxically a strong vote for SF and a victory for Coppinger in Dublin West would have help Noonans negotiation position. “Give us better terms or you will have Sinn Fein or even worse mad Trotskyists to deal with”.
In fact what Greece needs is a communist insurgency, then the foreign aid would flood in.
think he supported the ula call for a referendum at least at the start of the first dail session.
yeah that makes scence. entirely legitimate as well condidering the office is mainly symbolic. think shinners should forget about winning it and just use it for the platform. the semiotics of someone like mcguinness as a contract to TINA a good vote would make the point your on about.
forgot about the by election. are the SP the frount runners? no sypathey for FF over lenihan or are they finished in the area.
Well anyone who reckons McGuinness isn’t ‘right for the Aras’ should have a look at Lot 505 in a Dublin auction on Saturday
http://whytes.ie/AuctionPDFs/20110924.pdf
It went for €5200, where the guide price was at €1000-1500.
I love the ‘extremely rare’ formulation. Are there more? Did McGuinness have a production line?
And by the way how did it wind up in Whytes?
Last night Sean O’Rourke mentioned Vincent Browne’s SBPost article while laying into McGuinness/Pearse Doherty.
He paraphrased/quoted Browne apparently in saying that Vincent didn’t believe McGuinness about him leaving the IRA in the early 70s.
The quote in question:
“Some, including people close to McGuinness, indicated that he was a leading member of the IRA, that for a protracted period he was on the army council and IRA chief of staff for a period.”
Sort of a tad misleading of O’Rourke.
Decent piece by Browne actually since he acknowledges the number of deaths to be laid at the feet of other people who have held esteemed political office that have been embraced.
http://politico.ie/irish-politics/7903-mcguinness-presidency-whats-the-problem.html
Misleading? An RTE presenter/commentator?
There’s an interesting dimension emerging in the campaigning/media shouting. It’s to do with this notion of the president not being political vis-a-vis not expressing views of political significance where this pertains to anything that means something such as Sinn Fein being opposed to the established status-quo economic policy.
It came up last night on The Week in Politics with O’Rourke questioning whether McGuinness would taint the office with a bias (that’s not exactly what he said but it’s the gist of it). He continued to blather on about how McAlease goes abroad on trade missions to show Ireland’s open for business and to drum up that business and bring it back home. He specifically mentioned the aul blessed sacrosanct corpo tax rate.
One of Norris’ campaigning issues is/was/will be “enterprise” – noone of course has bothered to unpack what this means.
There was a woman on TV3 last night whose name I didn’t catch but she worked with McAlease and had accompanied her on missions, or something. She too spoke of this “enterprise” stuff.
Consider Ireland’s current economic policies towards transnational Capital ie. corporations. There’s a tonne of criticism about Ireland’s corpo tax – Nicholas Shaxson, Richard Murphy, even at home with Michael Taft, Donagh Brennan, Conor McCabe.
The presidency has already been “politicised” in this defacto acceptance of free transnational corporations in the context of what is dressed up as “enterprise”.
If McGuinness (a bit of an anti-establishmentarian apparently who may criticise govt. policy) or Higgins* ( a socialist apparently so one assumes he perhaps has some reservations about corporate tax swindles) or anyone else was to say “actually, no, I’m not going to go on a trade mission to drum up business because I don’t think this is in Ireland’s welfare and benefits a small elite rather than the entire people of Ireland etc. etc.”, surely that would be as acceptable as it is accepted for McAlease at present to speak to corporations to get them to come funnel funds through our tax haven, sorry I mean our financial services district.
*I don’t for a split second really expect either of these to challenge the enterprise stuff. There’s lobbying going on to set up NI as a haven for corporations and Higgins is in Labour who believe the anorexic and undemocratic tax policies towards corporations are a cornerstone of industrial policy.
Well if that’s thd line they’re taking won’t McG demolish it in seconds? Weren’t those famous jaunts he and Paisley took to the US precisely to drum up business for NI?
And let’s not even talk about the attitude of the NI exec to corpo tax.
But I think that point of yours is central to this, they’re reaching for anything and in a very unconsidered way. Can’t help but think McG and SF must be smiling because all this firing off stuff gives him and them plenty of time to prepare cogent responses. By the by saw the first scatter of posters up around Dublin today.
I had an aul gander at the blessed sacred heart document that is our dear constitution.
Found this which I didn’t know about until now:
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm
Article 12
10.
[b]1° The President may be impeached for stated misbehaviour.[/b]
2° The charge shall be preferred by either of the Houses of the Oireachtas, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this section.
[b]3° A proposal to either House of the Oireachtas to prefer a charge against the President under this section shall not be entertained unless upon a notice of motion in writing signed by not less than thirty members of that House.[/b]
4° No such proposal shall be adopted by either of the Houses of the Oireachtas save upon a resolution of that House supported by not less than two-thirds of the total membership thereof.
5° When a charge has been preferred by either House of the Oireachtas, the other House shall investigate the charge, or cause the charge to be investigated.
I’m not a constitutional lawyer obviously and I don’t know what “stated misbehaviour” is. Leaving the toilet seat up perhaps? Farting in a lift with a dignitary? Anyway, looks vague but also looks like Enda and Eamo would have the Prez by the short and curlies.
And yeah, they’re really throwing the kitchen sink at him.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0927/1224304799589.html?via=mr
(how did this end up as the number 3 read piece on their site before lunchtime?)
Fintan O’Toole is back in the saddle. Of all the bloody things going on in the country, in the world, in Wall St and he’s [b]still[/b] going on about this. Some people are saying he’s got an agenda though, he’s been commenting on this circus for a while now going back to Gay Byrne’s short lived stint in the race.
The peculiar thing is that if he could step back from his loathing for a moment, O’Toole’s tepid useless politics actually map more closely onto those of Sinn Fein than onto any other party. Except on the national question, of course, but even that difference is more theoretical than practical given that both he and they support the Belfast Agreement for the indefinite future.
Actually, come to think of it, I’m being slightly unfair to SF there. They also don’t share O’Toole’s cringing forelock tugging attitude towards the EU.
tepid…useless…cringing….forelock-tugging….
Hah, hah, I was thinking just like my tepid useless politics!
Do you have some better description, ejh? Are you familiar with the views of O’Toole?
Or is this just more standard-issue hand-wringing about unkind language making the baby Jesus cry?
I rather liked his Ship of Fools. I also liked the way he put his case. I don’t much like the way that you put yours.
Yes, Ship of Fools shows O’Toole in his best light. He can sometimes make quite cogent arguments against some of the antics of our local financial and political elite. It’s when he gets on to subjects like the North or the EU that he loses the run of himself entirely, typical blind spots of the Irish liberal but in his case exaggerated to an almost comic degree.
And, of course, his actual proposals for political change are mostly witless. He was, you may recall, one of the prime movers in attempts before the last elections to put together a new party consisting of the great and the good and spanning both the ideological “left” and right, united mostly by a sense of moral superiority.
As for your views on my use of language, I quite genuinely have difficulty summoning words to describe how little I care about your preferences. Certainly, I feel no need to hide my views behind cloying politeness so as to avoid offending your tender sensibilities.
The circles get smaller, Mark. Smaller and smaller.
Don’t you have somebody else to drip sanctimony over?
Mark, do you ever think how your contributions scan? The vehemence, the sense that all who take a different view from you are ‘other’… It’s not a left I recognise or want to identify with, and for a man who drops the ‘Stalinist’ term into any available discussion it seems at least somewhat ironic.
Since we’re kind of off-topic here talking about O’Toole.
Could anyone imagine Fintan joining an “Occupy IFSC” protest? Or “Occupy Dame St”? “Occupy Kildare St”?
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_occupies_wall_street_20110926/?ln
In a piece on Politico.ie many months ago, Gavan Titley wrote that in the case of Ireland’s it’s “best to start modestly and retreat from there”.
Harry Browne had a fantastic article in the last Village magazine (not online afaik) analyzing the Dublin-centric IT as well as Fintan.
His writing can be passionate at times but I think he’s jumped the shark here.
Clearly, the current nomination system doesn’t work: never fear, Google have the answer – you can run the whole campaign and election in mere minutes and it’s totally SCIENTIFIC (*may not be true*)
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=norris+&word2=mcguinness
That’s sort of fun. And not merely for the election.
Try Left/Right… amongst others…
I saw the first posters this morning on the “R” route near home that my bus takes to work. (Are they up a day early?)
I realised that this election is going to be very weird indeed. Out my way, Fianna Fáil has always first off the mark, nabbing key T-junctions, roundabouts and the back of large road signs for the 8×4 posters for their candidates, usually two or three days before it’s technically legal.
Observe and wonder at the novelty of it: an election with no FF logo.
The shape of things to come..?
“an election with no FF logo”
They weren’t all that prominent on the posters and literature of the party’s own candidates in the general election either.
Gotta love the toxic brand thing, long may they have sleepless nights worrying about how to resurrect themselves and reconnect with their roots. Nothing like a nice bit of angst to beat themselves up with.
“They weren’t all that prominent on the posters and literature of the party’s own candidates in the general election either.”
Good point.
slightly of your topic but on logo’s . does mary davis logo look a bit like the pogressive democrats, blue with a green line around it. id she from that backround or trying to appeal to that constituency. bad move i’d have taught if its deliberate or are some people starting to remember them with nostalgia .
Davis has light blue around the navy as opposed to the PDs who had green around the navy
I thought the same thing about Davis’ posters.
@irishelectionliterature, there’s a smaller poster where the colours of the “Vote 1″ look closer to the PD’s colour scheme.
i have to get the eyes tested could have sworn it was green earlyer, thanks for that. heres one of her posters
(edited that for you to show the image)
Voting for a so-called ‘Irish President’ and yet thousands of persons denied by the Brit instituted Border.
Even if it was an all Ireland election there is none of the candidates worthy of a vote-a pathetic lot.
The present so called ‘president’ of course will go down in history as being the one who invited the Brit queen to partitioned Ireland and thus securing partition forever.
Of course, if the Brit suspected agent MMcGuinness WAS TO BE ELECTED in no time he would be meeting the Duke of Edinburgh as a final step towards a Brit knighthood.
Sands, Pearse, etc.,must be turning in their graves.
From your language “Liam” I realise that you are a true “Irishman”. I was born here in “Ireland” and always vote in so-called “elections”, even those for the partitionist traitor statelet of so-called “Ireland”, which is not the true Ireland of the Tuatha de Danann.
I will be voting in the so-called “Presidential election” for the “President” of the Brit-founded so-called “Eire” but I will be doing so under protest until such time as Dal Riada lands in so-called “Scotland” are once again under the control of an Ard Ri, a true descendant of Cathal Cru Dearg.
Warning: sarcasm has been used in the writing of this post. Terms and conditions apply
This is one awesome article.Really looking forward to read more. Keep writing.