Charles Haughey was 'pro-business'.
Charles Haughey was 'pro-business'.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
I'm calling it now for Michael D, based on the general tally reports from round the country, showing him either well ahead or neck-and-neck with Gallagher. This report from Gallagher's home town is particularly telling. " With all seven boxes tallied in Sean Gallagher's home town of Blackrock in Louth the predictions are that Michael D Higgins is beating him 2:1." http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1028/vote_tracker.html
It was the Shinners wot won it for you.
Definitely Michael D's. As high as 40% in some early tallies. McGuinnes challenging Gallagher for 2nd spot in some areas. Mitchell doesn't seem to be showing at all.
It was the turnout of 170% in Louth that impressed me
You are a week behind BoyleSports on that call.
What point are you trying to make?
It was the Shinners wot won it for you.
And saved us a packet. Gallagher's pension on retirement would have been worth about €4m more than Michael D's. This was certainly the least worst outcome.
Based on what?
I find this post depressing.
By all means question the pension entitlements of the president, but it should not be the abiding criteria when choosing our head of state.
Depressingly it was my criteria. In a cost benefit analysis, I saw very little in terms of benefits from any of the 7 so it came down to a cost decision.
The_Banker
Registered User
- Messages
- 342
Based on the fact that Gallagher would be expected to live longer!!
Liam Cosgrave has been collecting a Taoiseach pension since 1977 which is almost 35 years!! Costing a fortune!!
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
I find all the stuff about 'retirement homes' and 'no new ideals' to be quite offensive. Michael D's age has little to do with his ability to be creative and innovative. I see little creativity and innovation from many 20 year olds - Michael D would leave them in the shade.
Indeed, though the results for both parties are pretty much the opposite of the general opinion poll readings for each. I wonder if this will lead to some rebalancing on general party preferences.
Depressing indeed. Not quite as spectacularly crass at the FF supporter on the radio during the week who suggested that we shouldn't vote for Michael D because of the probability that we'll have to pay for a State funeral. I wonder if Der Kaiser built this possibility into his cost benefit analysis.
Indeed, nice to see that Martin hasn't forgotten how to do an ambush. Though Gallagher just kept on digging in that hole. He should have turned on McGuinness and made the point that allegations about past involvement in FF fundraising pales in comparison to allegations about past involvement in murder and bombings.It was the Shinners wot won it for you.
I don't know but would be very surprised if they were.
Presumably they would get expenses for meetings.
Or pointed out that SF seemed to have plently of contacts withtax evading businessmen and dodgy builders (Priory Hall).
Don't think so, many have state cars/drivers anyway so would have little expense incurred themselves
Yes, this was one of the first considerations, but there would be a lower than 15% chance of this and wouldn't there be a state funeral regardless of whether he died in office or afterwards?
Apologies if the humour is a little black, but I thought I'd get away with it at Halloween.