Michael D. Higgins Declares As Presidential Candidate

[C. Flower]

In my view Michael D. Higgins (and the Left) was robbed of the Presidency when the Labour Party refused to back his campaign last time around (supposedly on financial grounds).

This left us with a second unelected term of Mary McAleese.

The power to refer legislation to the Courts on Constitutional grounds is a crucial long stop - given the extreme position the country is in the Presidency is more, not less, likely to have to make some important calls in the next seven years.

Michael D. is patently older and less energetic than seven years ago. He has spoken up for Gaza, called for a "social floor" - a basic minimum standard of living below which people shouldn't be allowed to fall - and opposed the developer/banker rescue.

Fergus Finlay has also declared his interest in standing.

Is Michael D. the man for the job?

[Binn Beal]

Michael D gives the Left an opportunity to practise some left unity. If the Left can mobilise behind him for President then the same could be done for the Dail and everything else.

As regards his presidency, it would be great to have someone who is interested in politics and not just a nodder, smiler and hand-shaker.

[Cato]

Michael D gives the Left an opportunity to practise some left unity. If the Left can mobilise behind him for President then the same could be done for the Dail and everything else.

As regards his presidency, it would be great to have someone who is interested in politics and not just a nodder, smiler and hand-shaker.

I have to agree. I would love to see the other left-parties getting behind MD (there's a phrase you couldn't say with a straight face about Norris!). It could be used as a real opportunity to get some left-wing unity going and offer a real alternative to FF/FG (two cheeks of the same arse).

[Binn Beal]

FF/FG (two cheeks of the same arse).
Now that's a slogan we could all unite behind.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

That is quite possibly the best description of the two main parties in Ireland I've ever heard- 'two cheeks of the same arse'.

Both of them have been sharing an assumed respectability that neither deserve. Mainly because both of them are equally guilty of propping up the gombeenarchy.

I don't think I'll be able to forgive FG for their suggested reform document they produced earlier this year or last which was quite obviously a negotiated sop to the status quo. I believe out of about six suggested reforms only one of them might have stood a chance of stopping the corruption at high level we've seen in the nexus between Irish 'business' and politics.

Both main parties are guilty of perpetuating a nonsensical divide in Irish politics based on a civil war that no living member of either party fought in and that ended almost a century ago. That alone describes the philosophical poverty of Irish politics.

Both parties are equally guilty of practising an ongoing hoax on the general public- with regard to a fabled Republic which does not exist in Irish law, a lawyer's joke in public nodding to a constitution that is a farce when measured against any known principles of a democratic Republic and both with an interest in the continuation of a level of corruption more appropriate to a 1970's island off the coast of South America.

I think both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael should be condemned like a crumbling workhouse for their ongoing complicity in the betrayal of those who died in the foundation and proclamation of a Republic.

The thought of the merchant class of either party standing around at a commemoration ceremony at the 100 year anniversary of the Easter Rising makes me feel physically sick- and they are the class of people who would do so without a qualm.

Sticky fingered parasites who would never in a million years introduce any kind of law or regulation that would affect their ability to line their own and their friends' pockets.

[eoinmn]

Is Michael D. the man for the job?He was 7 years ago.

Labour let the country down by not running him.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

What reason did Labour give for not putting forward a candidate at the time does anyone remember?

[Binn Beal]

Sticky fingered parasites who would never in a million years introduce any kind of law or regulation that would affect their ability to line their own and their friends' pockets.
Great stuff this morning. Getting better and better. That one reminds me of the Yeats poem - 'fumbling in a greasy till and adding the half-pence to the pence.'

[C. Flower]

What reason did Labour give for not putting forward a candidate at the time does anyone remember?

Money - saving it for some other election or other.

Had they called for public donations they would have come. Higgins is a respected politician.

There was talk about the Workers Party / Labour Party divide within the LP.

[C. Flower]

He was 7 years ago.

Labour let the country down by not running him.


I very much agree with you, and was raging about it at the time.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Money - saving it for some other election or other.

Had they called for public donations they would have come. Higgins is a respected politician.

There was talk about the Workers Party / Labour Party divide within the LP.

Smells like a Merrion Bar Agreement ....

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Great stuff this morning. Getting better and better. That one reminds me of the Yeats poem - 'fumbling in a greasy till and adding the half-pence to the pence.'

Or like the Napoleonic line in speaking of the British ... 'A nation of shopkeepers'.

Turns out he wasn't that far wrong when one considers Thatcherism.

[C. Flower]

Smells like a Merrion Bar Agreement ....


Translation, please and thankyou.

[Christy Walsh]

MDH should have got it years ago and if he still wants it I hope he gets this time around. I just hope it is not another clothes horse like McA.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Translation, please and thankyou.

A 'Merrion Bar Agreement' is a deal reached between ostensible political opponents outside public knowledge; a very popular place for these things to be discussed is in the bar at the Merrion hotel...

Its a bit like unofficial pairing ... 'ye give our candidate a clear run this time and we'll give ye something similar when ye want a clear run'.

[Baron von Biffo]

Is Michael D. the man for the job?

The presidency and the Dublin mayor will be battles for supremacy between FG and Lab. At the moment they are probably both Gilmore's to lose and he will be keen to avoid handing Kenny a victory in the run up to the GE. With that in mind I doubt Lab will go for Higgins. For all his fine qualities he can come across in debate as shrill, giddy, waspish or petulant. Those traits would rapidly erode public affection for him over the campaign.

[Lapsedmethodist]

I read MDH's letter about two years ago now about the need to engage in a debate about the direction Ireland needed to take and thought that that was a good idea. However, along came the Lisbon debates and he was nowhere to be found. I can only surmise that he meditated with his inner shinner and decided to keep quiet for the sake of the party ; Labour being in favour of the Treaty. I suspect that despite his concern for Gaza - who doesn't and how is that a plus for an Irish presidential canditate - he's isolationist in his political philosophy despite having once again called for a debate yesterday when he announced his candidacy.

[Murra]

If I had a choice between Michael D and Norris, I'd go for Michael D, because he has never let us down. Both deserve the opportunity, and I would be happy to see a gay man in the presidency, but my experiences of Norris's after-dinner speeches leaves a lot to be desired - he can be pretty crude at times, and could be a potential embarassment in front of foreign statespeople.

Finlay is a nice man, but hasn't yet earned his place. There are no other runners as far as I'm concerned.

[John McMahon]

If Higgins if the candidate, it will give him a chance to explain:-

a) his behaviour during the citizenship referendum;

b) his soft on illegal immigrants policy:

c) why Irish people in their own country are unemployed while many jobs are held by illegal immigrants;

d) why the education of so many working-class children is being disrupted by class-mates who cannot speak English;

e) his failure to distance himself from his fellow Lefties who in September 2007tried to bully Catholic schools into rejecting Catholic children in favour of non-Catholic children just because the non-Catholics were black. The culprits have not yet apologised for their anti-Catholic and anti-Irish behaviour.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

If Higgins if the candidate, it will give him a chance to explain:-

a) his behaviour during the citizenship referendum;

b) his soft on illegal immigrants policy:

c) why Irish people in their own country are unemployed while many jobs are held by illegal immigrants;

d) why the education of so many working-class children is being disrupted by class-mates who cannot speak English;

e) his failure to distance himself from his fellow Lefties who in September 2007tried to bully Catholic schools into rejecting Catholic children in favour of non-Catholic children just because the non-Catholics were black. The culprits have not yet apologised for their anti-Catholic and anti-Irish behaviour.

Finger on the political pulse of the nation as ever John ...

[C. Flower]

STATEMENT BY MICHAEL D HIGGINS TD

President of the Labour Party, Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs
Wednesday 15 September 2010

HIGGINS TO SEEK LABOUR PARTY NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Michael D Higgins TD, Labour Party President and Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and former Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, is to seek the Labour Party nomination for the Presidential election, due to take place in late 2011.

Deputy Higgins said:” I am seeking the Labour Party nomination and in doing so wish to continue and extend that which I have articulated for many years in a number of fora both at Labour Party events and elsewhere, namely, in seeking a form of real, genuine, inclusive citizenship. This is something which Ireland desperately needs, now more than ever as we are experiencing a crisis of an institutional, political and indeed ethical kind.

“We need to discuss the basis of a new form of trust built on a meaningful form of citizenship appropriate for a Republic. The connection has been lost between the country’s direction, especially with regard to the way in which the economy has been run, and the citizen.

“As a country, we need to re-examine the direction Ireland is going in, and the value of a real, participatory citizenship and how this can be achieved through a deepening of democracy. The nature of the connection between the economy and the society is crucial if we are to choose a new direction.

“We must also consider issues such as that of intergenerational justice. To take just one example: Why should the uncritical, disastrous, actions of one generation, such as the current government’s reaction to the banking crisis, become the irreversible burden of a succeeding one?

“I believe I can make a real contribution drawing on my experience of the political institutions in Ireland at every level. Indeed through my participation as Minister for Culture at the European level I opened discussion on all of these issues and in particular on the contribution of culture to a real and meaningful citizenship.

“I have again and again stressed that we need to locate any such debate within a wider framework of universal human rights and responsibility, and have, over the years, stressed, and remain convinced of, the value of giving practical expression to the importance of human rights. I have participated in campaigns at home and abroad for the advancement of human rights and will draw on that experience during the campaign when it takes place.”

“These are only some of the issues which I think could usefully be raised during a Presidential election campaign and if selected by the Labour Party as its candidate I would be very pleased to lend my own voice, ideas and energy to the debate.”


ENDS-

[Jolly Red Giant]

Michael D's day is long since gone - ever since he hopped in the ministeral merc twenty years ago he has been on a downward slope. He is looking to the Pheonix Park as a retirement home with a nice pension to follow (to add to his other pensions).

[C. Flower]

Michael D's day is long since gone - ever since he hopped in the ministeral merc twenty years ago he has been on a downward slope. He is looking to the Pheonix Park as a retirement home with a nice pension to follow (to add to his other pensions).

Who would you nominate ?

[Jolly Red Giant]

Who would you nominate ?

I'd abolish it - absolutely useless - and you'd save a fortune in the process.

[C. Flower]

I'd abolish it - absolutely useless - and you'd save a fortune in the process.

Yes, but until abolished the President can have a critical role in relation to legislation. I would rather have a friend than a foe in there.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

I can't recall the last time the President has refused to sign legislation into law or referred to the Council of State or Supreme Court.

Perhaps Robinson on one of the referendum issues? Either way the office does not work as a check n'balance on constitutionality the way it should. In fact there's a lot of evidence to say that the Presidency is no more than a government quango.

[C. Flower]

I can't recall the last time the President has refused to sign legislation into law or referred to the Council of State or Supreme Court.

Perhaps Robinson on one of the referendum issues? Either way the office does not work as a check n'balance on constitutionality the way it should. In fact there's a lot of evidence to say that the Presidency is no more than a government quango.

Yes, I believe Robinson did on more than one occasion. She was of course a legal practitioner herself.

It can't be ruled out that the President might have to make a very important call. I would like to see someone there with some principles,and who might choose the public interest rather than immediate political pressures.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Thats actually the duty of the President even under the laughable chancer's charter we call the current Constitution.

The fact that we have to try to come up with a candidate who would even lean personally in that direction shows what a farce it is.

[BOZG]

Yes, I believe Robinson did on more than one occasion. She was of course a legal practitioner herself.

It can't be ruled out that the President might have to make a very important call. I would like to see someone there with some principles,and who might choose the public interest rather than immediate political pressures.

Interesting point. I've heard a somewhat similar argument being raised by people but in relation to the Dublin Mayoralty, particularly if it had some significant legislative powers over public transport, water supply etc.

I think the problem is that some people look at it with rose-tinted glasses about the possibilities if a "left", and I use that term loosely, was to win the election. Yes, in a narrow sense, it would be good if that person took a stand against the right-wing government or council or whatever, but what if the opposite took place and a right-winger took the Presidency or Mayoralty and attempted to cut across progressive measures being introduced?

We'd be the first to decry it as undemocratic and oppose it. How can we possibly ignore that point when it suits our own agenda? We should be calling for increased de-centralisation and grassroots power rather than defending centralised power when it suits us.

That doesn't mean we should take an ultra-left response and refuse to acknowledge the elections. They are still important platforms but anyone who stands should do so on the basis of opposition to the position and a call for its abolition in favour of greater local democracy.

[C. Flower]

Interesting point. I've heard a somewhat similar argument being raised by people but in relation to the Dublin Mayoralty, particularly if it had some significant legislative powers over public transport, water supply etc.

I think the problem is that some people look at it with rose-tinted glasses about the possibilities if a "left", and I use that term loosely, was to win the election. Yes, in a narrow sense, it would be good if that person took a stand against the right-wing government or council or whatever, but what if the opposite took place and a right-winger took the Presidency or Mayoralty and attempted to cut across progressive measures being introduced?

We'd be the first to decry it as undemocratic and oppose it. How can we possibly ignore that point when it suits our own agenda? We should be calling for increased de-centralisation and grassroots power rather than defending centralised power when it suits us.

That doesn't mean we should take an ultra-left response and refuse to acknowledge the elections. They are still important platforms but anyone who stands should do so on the basis of opposition to the position and a call for its abolition in favour of greater local democracy.

Like the GLC ? It was useful as a demonstration project, and showed that real improvements in peoples' quality of life could be made by a left administration. The problem politically was the intoxication of Livingstone and his supporters with what were in fact very limited opportunities under capitalism.

The Presidency is a different kettle of fish. It doesn't have scope for doing anything much for anybody, but there is no point in willingly handing it over to a political opponent who may have a critical decision to make at some stage.

Also, the Presidential campaign, if the left could find and honest, hard working and articulate candidate with a track record of substance, would be a big propoganda opportunity.

[Eurocitizen]

Micheál Ó Muircheartaigh would be great compromise candidate for the Presidency.
Nobody knows the park better than this man.

[C. Flower]

Micheál Ó Muircheartaigh would be great compromise candidate for the Presidency.
Nobody knows the park better than this man.

:):):)

Why not?

[Eurocitizen]

:):):)

Why not?


Because I suggested it, people are not supposed to agree with FF proposals;)

[Cato]

:):):)

Why not?

Not a few posts back we were discussing the importance of the one real power the president has, to refer legislation to the Supreme Court. Do you think that MOM is qualified to make those calls?

[Cato]

Because I suggested it, people are not supposed to agree with FF proposals;)

Ease off on the self-pity and persecution complex. You FFers are getting as bad as the Catholics.

[C. Flower]

Not a few posts back we were discussing the importance of the one real power the president has, to refer legislation to the Supreme Court. Do you think that MOM is qualified to make those calls?

I would want to put him under a severe stress test before he would get my vote.

We struck lucky once with a human rights oriented lawyer. Do we have any more of those about the place ?

[Binn Beal]

Pardon my ignorance but who is he?

[Cato]

I would want to put him under a severe stress test before he would get my vote.

We struck lucky once with a human rights oriented lawyer. Do we have any more of those about the place ?

A decent sense of justice and long legislative experience could also qualify. Step forward Michael D!

[Cato]

Pardon my ignorance but who is he?

A sports commentator. I have never listened to him either.

[C. Flower]

A sports commentator. I have never listened to him either.

A national icon.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/championship/2010/0916/omuircheartaigh_tributes.html

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

the older, male version of Miriam O'Callaghan ... ie someone we've seen on the telly or heard on the radio.

[C. Flower]

the older, male version of Miriam O'Callaghan ... ie someone we've seen on the telly or heard on the radio.

Same trade, different league
- you can hear him here

http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/championship/2010/0916/micheal_o_muircheartaigh.html

[Binn Beal]

He sounds like a Redemptorist priest giving a sermon in Limerick in 1954.

I hear Brendan Balfe, of RTE, is also retiring. Between the two of them that should take care of the RTE winter schedule because when you resign form RTE you get to go on all their chat shows, have a tribute programme or two and then there's endless reels of playback and repeats and maybe even your life story.

[Lapsedmethodist]

Pardon my ignorance but who is he?

Do they also have to pipe in the sunlight where you live ?

[Binn Beal]

Sport, the new opium of the masses, is not compulsory - yet.

[Binn Beal]

Two nominations from RTE - one an icon (seemingly) and the other an eyeful.

[simonj]

In my view Michael D. Higgins (and the Left) was robbed of the Presidency when the Labour Party refused to back his campaign last time around (supposedly on financial grounds).


The main people, to the best of my knowledge, that put the kaibosh on that were Rabbitte and Gilmore, MDH's fellow westerners but also ex DL/WP - the finance argument was in my opinion, to save face but at the same time perhaps to demonstrate and consolidate the power of DL within Labour and pull one over the Spring faction.

[boozwatch]

Had the pleasure of hearing Michael D promote his campaign in a public Q & A debate in Bandon last night. Big fan of his principles, (equality, social justice, human rights) but during the debate it was hard to avoid the fact that he was steering off any real debate on the present situation, or indeed any issues since Labour abandoned its socialist credentials in the 90's under Dick Spring. In avoiding criticism of Labour he also of course avoided saying anything of current relevance or merit at all given their role in government.

He also referred to himself in the third person as Micheal D a few times as if he is now accepting his role as a lovable 'character', rather than a player. When asked a Q about the failure of Labour to deliver on socialism the mask slipped and there was a defensive and nastily sarcastic tone to the answer in which he effectively complained that Labour had been abandoned by the left rather than the other way round. He defended their current role referring to their opposition to the guarantee - a guarantee that Gilmore has since effectvely endorsed. Not sure any of that washes.

His reading of one of his own poems was beautiful though, but not sure that is enough to win votes for Pres.

[C. Flower]

Today/PK (RTE Radio 1) is featuring Michael D. Higgins this morning, with questions being taken live on air.

[C. Flower]

Text 51551.

[C. Flower]

On payment, Michael D. says he hasn't thought about the money and would not take his pensions as well if elected. He will think further about this.

[Binn Beal]

For me there are two choices: which to put first between Michael D and David Norris. And which to put last: the Holy God candidate; the charity woman who wants to cash in her celebrity status or the FF 'businessman'.

[C. Flower]

This went up on David Norris's website yesterday. Not a good day for getting attention on the news.


Senator David Norris was today joined at Leinster House by a number of his supporters within the Oireachtas, who have agreed to sign his nomination papers in September. Those committed to supporting his nomination are:

Finian McGrath T.D.
Maureen O’Sullivan T.D.
Catherine Murphy T.D.
Mick Wallace T.D
Stephen Donnelly T.D.
Thomas Pringle T.D.
John Halligan T.D.
Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan T.D.
Senator John Crown
Senator Sean Barrett
Senator Mary Ann O’Brien
Senator Marie Louise O’Donnell
Senator David Norris
Senator Norris has said: “I am delighted to be here with my Oireachtas colleagues today to mark this significant milestone within my presidential campaign. I am certain that I will obtain further signatures and my name will be on the ballot paper on October 21st, not only that but I am confident that I will go on to win and become the 9th President of Ireland”

David Norris will be concentrating on obtaining the further signatures required during the month of August, when local authorities do not sit and the Oireachtas is in recess. In September, he will once again be targeting local authorities.