• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Political Affiliations of "Ordinary Citizen" members of the Constitutional Convention


Norman Bates

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
16,747
Twitter
norman60bates
I am in favour of gay marriage but the much lauded constitutional convention was supposed to be inclusive of all viewpoints.
If it's not it's a pointless exercise and a waste of time and resources and just more gombeenism.
I might be wrong but hasn't the Convention done what most committees do:

Norm's definition. A committee. A group of people who individually can do nothing, but collectively can decide to do nothing.

Put it to the people. That's a great decision. Well worth the tea and sandwiches. :roll:
 


gijoe

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
15,377
Has the constitutional Convention been stacked with "ordinary citizens", some of whom in reality have political affiliations or could actually be considered politicians themselves having run in local elections?

The member list of the CC (66 "randomly" selected "ordinary citizens" and 33 politicians) is posted here: https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/ListOfMembers.pdf

Consider the backgrounds of the following "ordinary citizen" members:

Lydia Peppard, Meath: A woman of the same name ran for election as a Labour candidate to Trim Town Council. She got 2.65% and was eliminated. ElectionsIreland.org: 2004 Town Council - Trim First Preference Votes

She is listed as being elected "Equality officer" of the Meath Labour party in a 2002 article. Father and son appointed Labour - Independent.ie

She and a neighbour also selected were subject of an Irish Independent article in February raising questions about the transparency of the selection process. Concern as couple and set of neighbours are 'randomly selected' for constitutional body - Independent.ie

Ray Howes, Wicklow: A person of the same name ran for Labour in the Wicklow local elections in 2009. He later joined Sinn Fein. "RECENT LOCAL election candidate for Labour in Wicklow town, Ray Howes, has left the Labour Party to join the ranks of Sinn Féin."
Howes joins Sinn Fein after leaving Labour - Independent.ie

Luke Boyle, Kilkenny. A person of the same name is described in a 2005 article as "a former Labour Party councillor on Kilkenny Corporation." Midlands 103 FM Radio - Podcasts Live Radio Podcast Ireland Radio Station Programmes Midlands 103 FM Podcast Audio Playback - Radio Station Ireland

Richard Codd, Wicklow: A person of the same name is described as "Constituency Chairman" of the "Wicklow Constituency Fine Gael Party" in a January 2013 submission to the local electoral boundary committee. http://www.boundarycommittee.ie/SubmissionsReceived/Wicklow Constituency Fine Gael Party - Wicklow.pdf

Is it really credible that these people were "randomly selected"?

There are also other examples but I'm unwilling to post these as there is greater uncertainty due to the names being relatively common and living in large population areas such as Dublin.

It is incumbent on Chairperson Tom Arnold and others leading the Constitutional Convention to demonstrate absolute transparency about the member selection process lest public confidence in the Convention and their recommendations be undermined.
You should get this bit of research into the media. Although I am sure one or two might be different people with the same names it is certainly worthy of further investigation by someone.
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,394
Nepotism and gombeenism are rife in this society. No wonder Gimmemore has so much time for the convention. The Looper party stink even more tha FFinished or the Greens at this stage.
It is endemic throughout Irish society , especially in the state sector in places like RTE , CIE, ESB and VECs etc ( i believe the civil service commission or whatever its title is now to be scrupulous)

We are actually have more glass ceilings in our society than the English system unless you know the right nod or wink ...... it is one of the spectacular failures of this Government , voted in to effect change and one of the main reasons Labour are feeling the brunt

Many voters never experienced Labour or FG in Government and thought cute hoorism and jobs for the boys was a strictly FF phenomenon ....my (longer) experiences is that Labour (inventors of the special advisor) are actually the worst culprits
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,439
I might be wrong but hasn't the Convention done what most committees do:

Norm's definition. A committee. A group of people who individually can do nothing, but collectively can decide to do nothing.

Put it to the people. That's a great decision. Well worth the tea and sandwiches. :roll:
I'm more concerned by the ideas they decide NOT to put to the people. What sort of republic allows a selection of unelected individuals to decide what the overall population should and should not be allowed an opinion on?
 
Last edited:

Al Gebra

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
6,023
I might be wrong but hasn't the Convention done what most committees do:

Norm's definition. A committee. A group of people who individually can do nothing, but collectively can decide to do nothing.

Put it to the people. That's a great decision. Well worth the tea and sandwiches. :roll:
I'm not sure about your definition.

I will convene a committee to decide.
 

west'sawake

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
3,649
While I agree that there is the semblance of what appears to be a stacked deck in the selection of participants I don't think the figures are particularly out of whack with recent opinion polls on the subject.
73% seems to be the average approval rating in the polls and it was 79% in the CC vote. Higher than the poll but not significantly.
This constitutional convention is a sham, contrived to pander to what labour sees as the most fundamental human right of all, the right to redefine marriage. The issues that really matter, the shelling out of this nation, the loss of our sovereignty, which will continue even when the Troika go as we are sucked into an E.U. where the smaller nations are completely subsumed, no independent monetary policy, ditto fiscal policy as that too converges, ditto loss of control of our water, no Norwegian model for oil and gas, no control even over our own bogs, Monsanto here as well as our green food image is gone with genetically modified trial crops, and on and on.

No real radical political reform, as the corporatist consensus, the architects of failure stay entrenched, and we are given a referendum proposal on Gay Marriage. Truly this is Labour's way.

I think this referendum proposal, at the end of the day, has as much chance of being passed as Labour had of winning in Meath East. Gilmore is so out of touch it is comic.
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
It is just the usual cowpat celtic system of pretending to be doing something democratic while not having an ounce of the honesty other countries moved towards thousands of years ago when democracy was first developed.

In other countries the political systems move from chieftain to tyrannical king to democracy and round again.

In Ireland the cycle never even got started. Because of the peasant nature of those involved who don't even have to bother pretending they understand anything about democracy beyond learning a few rote phrases.

one third of this hames of an arranged farce referred to as a convention is stacked with 'no change' merchants in the first place.

And now we see as suspected that there seem to be party apparatchiks from the Brobdinagian and intellectually stillborn Irish party system slid into the rest of the convention just to be doubly sure no new thing is in danger of arising.

In a sense it doesn't matter. A decrepit fraud like this and other examples of an inability to analyse over the dead weight of what has happened before will bring its own reward in the end.
 

Victor Meldrew

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
7,172
No real radical political reform, as the corporatist consensus, the architects of failure stay entrenched, and we are given a referendum proposal on Gay Marriage. Truly this is Labour's way.
If you consider Gay Marriage to be a trivial matter, compared with what really presses upon our nation, can you not just agree to let it pass.

If you are straight, it will not affect you.

However, "West", If you are being pressured into making a commitment to that special someone, who pees the same way as you, but "are just not ready", then can I suggest mediation, but let others get on with their lives.
 

Keith-M

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
15,779
Website
www.allkindsofeverything.ie
Are these the members of the political parties? Or the ordinary citizens?

Am smelling a rat. The % reached yesterday for same sex marriage is a bit odd I thought. As a strong supporter of same sex marriage I was delighted initially and I do believe it will pass a referendum, but the high % figure I don't see on the ground.
Very simple to understand, all the party nominations were going to vote yes and well as well as the supposed "general public" people who are really just party mouthpieces. The fact that there were almost 20 against even putting it to a vote was the only eye-opener. I suspected it might struggle to get into double figures.
 
Last edited:

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,398
To be fair, of the four names given, I’d regard two as being relatively common names. Secondly, there are roughly 2000 council seats in the country and often four or five people competing for each one, so that would indicate around 10,000 individual candidates per local election. When you account for the fact that there have been seven local elections in the past forty years, you’re talking about tens of thousands of people out there who have been local election candidates.

So it’s not hugely surprising that even a randomised system would have picked a few who had run for election, and it would be pretty undemocratic to tell someone that because they once sought election, they can’t contribute to a debate on the future of the Constitution.
 

Ryan Tubbs

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
3,660
The fact that a couple of politically active people got selected isn't particularly shocking. Bear in mind that when the initial selection was picked at random, participation wasn't compulsory - you could say no. Therefore, they worked down through a list of names until they found 66 people willing to participate. Naturally, people involved in political parties are far more likely to say yes, given that they have a particular interest.

So if the people listed above are who the OP says they are (and that's a big if - we don't know that for sure) then I wouldn't attach huge significance to it.

What I did find very worrying however were the reports earlier in the convention that the people "randomly selected" included two people who were in a relationship, and two other people who were next-door neighbours. That is simply not mathematically possible in a "random selection".
 

west'sawake

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
3,649
If you consider Gay Marriage to be a trivial matter, compared with what really presses upon our nation, can you not just agree to let it pass.

If you are straight, it will not affect you.

However, "West", If you are being pressured into making a commitment to that special someone, who pees the same way as you, but "are just not ready", then can I suggest mediation, but let others get on with their lives.
I don't believe it to be a trivial matter, and have posted why elsewhere on other threads, nor do I believe fundamental human rights of gay men and women, with or without children, are negatively affected, what with civil partnership, and constitutional protections already there for all children, not matter what family form they are in.

I just cannot accept and will not accept the social deconstruction of marriage, because it is ideologically driven and a lie to call something that which it is not. And while I do not see it as immediately pressing as the loss of control of our other autonomy markers, it does form part of the collective internationalist push to erode the natural bulwarks that hold back global social engineering, natural law morality, pertinent to many theistic beliefs, and which hinder part the socialization and re-education of each 'national' populace in line with a utilitarian, humanist, quasi communist, philosophy via corporatistm and a social market dominated by oligarchs, technocracts, multinationals & cartels, which goes hand in hand with each nation have its institutions shelled out and their respective fiscal and monetary and judicial powers emasculated. in effect their populations and families are increasing socialised and dependent on the Supra State that controls the money supply, the banks, energy, food, and on and on.

Gay marriage pushing is just another part the elemination of centuries of cultural, national and religious restraints, that these pushers see as conditioning against their own social form official engineering must be dissolved or weakened, included in this is the notion of the family based on marriage between a man and a woman as the basic self sustaining cell of society, redefine that, control that, via a mass of rights, truncated from natural law, with the State is the all benevolent dispenser of and the great 'carer' and we are into a revolution more dramatic and in my sense frightening than Communism.

Fight that I will, even if the poor liberals and conservatives are clueless, blinded by their hatred of tradition, or religion, and failing to see the wisdom of the ages.


It will of course affect me. It will affect my children. The logical push if marriage is redefined is to change the whole moral education framework to give effect to that. I can no more agree in my heart and mind to accepting a redefiniton of marriage than I could to saying an unborn child is not fully a person.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,776
West, Victor there are DOZENS of threads on gay marriage. Why not go there and post your thoughts rather than derailing this one (Which has nothing to do with gay marriage).
 

Victor Meldrew

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
7,172
I don't believe it to be a trivial matter....

just another part the elimination of centuries of cultural, national and religious restraints,..... with the State is the all benevolent dispenser of and the great 'carer' and we are into a revolution more dramatic and in my sense frightening than Communism. .
So you want to retain the imposed superstitions of unelected theocracy as opposed to the outcomes of a democratic process.

Way to go freedom...

We had a theocracy here for a few generations, It was not a big success... do please try to keep up.

I pity your kids if any of them "turn out the wrong way"...
 

Ribeye

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
26,304
If this woman on Liveline is representive of the people at the convention,

Than, it's simply a joke,

An costly joke,

"gay people are around for centuries"

Sufferin cats:)
 

gijoe

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
15,377
She has confirmed what Ronan Mullen was saying about politicians 'leading on' those non-politicians at their table.
 

Ribeye

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
26,304
I stood up and said "gay people come from heterosexual parents", and there was a silence,

Yeah, they were all thinking you are an idiot luv:)
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,398
She has confirmed what Ronan Mullen was saying about politicians 'leading on' those non-politicians at their table.
What's the definition of 'leading on' though. If she means politicians took a more active role in the discussion and that non-politicians as a result took a less active role, then is that really surprising?
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top