Gareth Sheridan faces uphill battle in presidential race — everyone seems to accept this but him
He argued he wants people to 'make your judgments based on context and getting to know me', not through 'hysterical headlines'.
What are the headlines he speaks of?
'I think my immediate persona that we're seeing online now is the multi-millionaire tycoon, ego maniac,' Sheridan told reporters in the Constitution Room in The Shelbourne Hotel.
'I think it's not really fitting of the person I am. I don't think I've ever used the word tycoon in a sentence, so I thought it was an interesting description."
Except he has used the word 'tycoon' in a sentence. He had used it 10 minutes previously.
He argued that Article 45 of the constitution stated, 'in simple terms, through your job, you should be able to afford to have a life here'. This, he said, would mean the president could tackle the Government on housing.
'It's taking a multi-millionaire pharma tycoon to now bring this to people's attention,' Sheridan said, completely unprompted.
It was a simple mistake, but it underlines the naivety at the heart of his campaign.
Nothing will go unnoticed and everything will be scrutinised.
At 35, Gareth Sheridan will be the youngest candidate to ever contest the presidential election if he gets on the ballot paper.
He is 'confident' he has a pathway to a nomination, arguing that he has as proposers and seconders at least four councillors.
But, as one hopeful pointed out this week, that is the easy part. The hard part is getting the whole council to support your bid.
The naivety was further underlined by Sheridan's unprompted statement that there was a concerted 'attack on his character' by people in his former business partner Sean Gallagher's circle.
He argued that his campaign team has received 'copy and paste' queries on some matters, suggesting that journalists had been leaked negative stories about him.
It was an intervention that he could end up regretting.
During the press conference, it became clear that he is relying on several key phrases to get him through his points.
This includes, 'the nurses holding up signs in Australia asking to come home' and 'grandparents continuing to see their grandkids grow up over an iPad screen'.
They are valid points and, as he correctly said 'housing is an anchor for every issue we're facing in the country today'.
Gareth Sheridan canvassing at the Tullamore Show with Ella Neville from Mucklagh. Picture: Alf Harvey
But, considering he is only in the race since Sunday, these catchphrases have been trotted out so often they are already starting to sound tired.
And, as he admitted himself, he is not going to 'pick up a hammer' and head to the buildings sites if he is president.
It was also clear that Sheridan was daunted walking into the Constitution Room to face the media.
As the hour-long press conference wore on, he became more confident and did, to his credit, deal with every question he was thrown in a straightforward manner.
This included topics ranging from his person net worth ($15.5bn), the car he drives (a used 2021 Mercedes hybrid) and whether he had any convictions (none).
He also addressed the range of other scandals that have appeared in the media this week. This ranged from his mother's objections to housing, a $25,000 fine and links to an Israeli Defence Forces Hospital.
As polished as he is, he faces an uphill battle. Everyone appears to accept this but him.
The race was blown open by news Mairead McGuinness was pulling out.
But whether it is blown wide open enough to allow him to update his LinkedIn bio from tycoon to president remains to be seen.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
7 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on Budget 2026: put the focus on what is important
Over the next couple of weeks, as the Autumn political season starts to kick in, debate on October's budget will get underway in earnest. As ever, there will be a cacophony of demands from interest groups and lobbyists, looking for more spending or lower taxes for their particular cause. The job of the Government, of course, is to look through the noise to what is important. Despite the generous amount of €9.4 billion set aside for budget measures, this will not be easy. Money will be quickly eaten up through spending pressures in providing State services. Plans to hike vital investment expenditure need to be allowed for. And the demands on the table already would take up the €1.5 billion set aside for tax reductions a few times over. Yet while the choices will be sharp in some areas, context is needed. This is not shaping up to be a 'tough' budget. The promised package is still nearly three times the size of the last pre-Covid budget in 2019. The first job of the Government, indeed, is to start returning annual budgets to more sustainable levels, reducing them from the huge spending rises required during Covid-19 and to tackle the cost-of-living crisis. Claims that households are still squeezed need to be met in two ways. One is by appropriate increases in welfare and other support packages. The other is by continuing to improve the provision of services in areas such as health, education and childcare. These are much more effective in the longer-term than another round of universal cash supports. But by engaging in a blatant pre-election manoeuvre last year to repeat these 'once-off' supports again, Ministers have created a rod for their own back this time around. READ MORE Statements from Ministers that there would be no cost-of-living package this time appear to have become more equivocal in recent weeks. But giving a lot of money out again through these payments to all households is an inefficient use of State cash. If the Government does not bring this process to an end in the first budget of its new term, then – barring a big squeeze on the State finances – it never will. The plan to increase vital State investment is a key reason why there needs to be some restraint elsewhere. Realistic budgeting for the provision of State services also needs to be restored, ending the annual overruns in areas like health. Relying on corporate tax to keep outperforming as a way to pay for spending coming in ahead of target each year is not a good strategy. The other reason for caution is the uncertainty faced due to the policies of Donald Trump. Despite the trade deal between the EU and US, the economic and political backdrop for Ireland remains risky and unpredictable. Having cash in reserve and pursuing a strategic approach have seldom looked more important.
Sunday World
8 hours ago
- Sunday World
Customers need lower prices if hospitality sector VAT rate is axed, TD says
Hotel, bars and restaurants say if the VAT rate is cut they they need to keep the cash to survive. A cut in the VAT rate for the hospitality sector must be passed on to customers, a Government TD has insisted. Paula Butterly, the Fine Gael Deputy in Louth said consumers must also benefit with reduced prices in our bars, restaurants and hotels. The Finance Minister Paschal Donohue is expected to axe the vat rate in the October budget from 13.5 to 9pc at a cost of almost €1 billion to the exchequer. However a large number of Fianna Fail backbenchers are against it and want some of this money used on a cost of living package to help families instead. They also say if the VAT cut is coming it should be brought into play from July 2026 - thus freeing up half a billion quid. Bar. News in 90 Seconds - August 16th But Deputy Butterly said the hospitality industry is struggling and needs help. She said the cut in the hospitality VAT rate is also part of the programme for government and must be delivered. She stated: 'Our SMEs are the fundamental employer in our economy and the tourism sector plays a very significant role in this, especially in regional areas. "While I fully support the VAT reduction I would hope to see their customers benefiting from this with reduced prices. "It is vital we protect and support employment in this sector but we also need to ensure that people coming through their doors see the benefit of the reduction as well." However the hotel, bars and restaurants say if the VAT rate is cut they they need to keep the cash to survive. They argue their costs from food to energy have soared in recent years and they have had no option but to hike up prices to stay in business. They say if they get the VAT rate cut it will mean no job losses and pubs especially in rural Ireland will survive. Adrian Cummins the CEO of the Irish Restaurant Association said the Government decision to increase the VAT from 9pc back up to 13.5pc in September 2023 was catastrophic for the whole industry. He said: 'Restaurants, cafes and food businesses operate on notoriously tight margins. The average profit margin goes between 3 to 5pc in good times and far less in rural parts during the off season. "The increase of 4.5pc was a massive blow. A lower VAT rate supports job security, keeps wage bills manageable, and allows businesses to invest in training and growth. "It is not a gift but an investment in Ireland as a tourist destination."
RTÉ News
13 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Academic row over 'temperature neutrality' vs 'climate neutrality'
Ireland's national climate objective is set out in the 2015 Climate Act. It is to "pursue and achieve" and make the transition to "a climate resilient, biodiversity rich, environmentally sustainable and climate neutral economy" by the year 2050. There are massive commitments packed into that single sentence, yet it is not really clear what precisely it means. Ireland's climate scientists are now fighting over that issue. The first bit is OK - climate resilience. We are going to have intense rain, more frequent and violent storms, bigger droughts and greater heat stress. Resilience means preparing to live with that. The biodiversity bit is OK too. Protecting nature is not hard to understand and most people would sign up for that. The third term – "environmentally sustainable". Some people think "sustainability" on its own is a bit of a wishy-washy term. But environmental sustainability is now commonly understood. Committees have been set up to focus on it in workplaces and communities all over the country. But that last phrase in the national climate objective, the commitment to a "climate neutral economy". That is a different ball game altogether. There is no agreement about what this entails, and a big academic row has now broken out among climate scientists about it. They are at loggerheads over what exactly climate neutrality is and how it should be measured. On one side is the Climate Change Advisory Council. This is the independent statutory body of climate experts that advises the Government about climate matters. It is their job to set Ireland's so-called "carbon budgets". This involves calculating how much cumulative greenhouse gas emissions need to be restricted to, every five years, if the country is to stay within its legally binding climate commitments. A huge amount of data and information, and some very important judgement calls, are needed for their calculations. The data and information parts are complicated but straightforward enough. Judgement calls however, are never straight forward and can be very controversial, as they are in this case. This week, a group of climate scientists took a major swipe at a most important judgement call recently made by the Climate Change Advisory Council when setting Ireland's carbon budget for the years 2031 to 2035. They accused the council of choosing to define climate neutrality in a way that confers a competitive advantage on Irish agriculture. Their complaint, which is a serious one, is that the Government's key climate advisers are choosing now, for the first time, to substitute "temperature neutrality" for "climate neutrality" when calculating Ireland's carbon budget. It means the Climate Change Advisory Council has told the Government it is OK to only ensure that by 2050 Ireland causes no additional warming to the earth's atmosphere. This is not the same as delivering "net zero" emissions from Ireland by 2050 which is much harder to achieve. The "net zero" approach puts the key emphasis on the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions. It requires, among other things, enormous changes in farming practices, forestry and land use to ensure that absolutely all greenhouse gases still coming out of Ireland by 2050 are re-absorb by natural processes here. Of course, the alternative "temperature neutrality" approach, now favoured by the Climate Change Advisory Council, aims to do everything possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the difference with this approach is that the ultimate emphasis is to ensure the contribution Ireland is making to rising global temperatures is zero by 2050. The council explained that it considered multiple definitions of what climate neutrality means before deciding that, for Ireland in particular, it had to mean ensuring temperature neutrality. It also explained that in making this judgement call, it reflected on the national climate objective and was guided by the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It said the Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goal - which is to limit global warming to well below 2C and pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5˚C - was also key in its deliberations. Ireland produces nine times more beef and dairy output than it consumes. Because of this it has an unusual greenhouse gas emissions profile, with a far higher share of methane emissions than most other countries. New Zealand is similar. But there are not many other places in the developed world where agriculture is so dominant. Methane from agriculture is an enormously potent greenhouse gas. It is capable of trapping about 85 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over a short time frame. After about 10 years however, methane dissipates. It breaks down and disappears from the atmosphere. So, its impact on global temperature ceases in a few short years while the warming effect of carbon dioxide carries on for several hundred years. All this means that a country with a huge agriculture sector can have an outsized impact in terms of limiting global warming by doing a relatively small amount of methane reduction. It gives it more wriggle room if the main aim is to eliminate a nation's contribution to rising global temperature. In some circumstances it could even enable a country to ease up on carbon emission efforts in sectors outside of agriculture and still ensure a lower contribution to the global warming potential of its national greenhouse gas mix. It turns out that this is precisely the impact the Climate Change Advisory Council's adaptation of the temperature neutrality target has for Ireland. The council itself has gone to some length to explain and document this impact. It calculated that aiming for temperature neutrality instead of net zero emissions will enable Ireland to emit an additional nine million tonnes of greenhouse gases during the first five years of the next decade. It also said it is entirely up to the Government to decide which sectors of the economy can share in that additional climate mitigation wriggle room, and by how much. Its carbon budget proposal document says all this will be fine "provided the rest of the world follows an emissions pathway that can be considered compliant with the Paris Agreement long term temperature goals". In essence what they are saying is that since most countries in the world do not have as large an agriculture sector as Ireland, or New Zealand, they are unlikely to choose the same temperature neutrality approach. That is because there is no advantage for them in doing so. And if that remains the case then all will be well. It is an approach that has startled the critics who have specifically highlighted the polar opposite argument – that it would be a disaster if every country followed Ireland and adopted temperature neutrality as their climate target. The dissenters insist it would seriously jeopardise the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5˚C. These criticisms are outlined in a paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, by Dr Colm Duffy and David Styles of University of Galway, Dr Róisín Moriarty and Professor Hannah Daly of University College Cork, and Carl Doedens and Malte Meinshausen of the University of Melbourne. They claim that Ireland's approach rewards modest cuts in methane emissions and serves to protect what they describe as "methane emissions privileges" at the expense of poorer nations. In doing so, they say it locks in current inequalities in the global food system. Their paper highlights that, by enabling Ireland to maintain a high share of global agriculture emissions, adopting the temperature neutrality target undermines the global transition to a sustainable and equitable food system. They note too that it dramatically reduces the level of ambition needed for overall greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Many might argue that the additional wriggle room it provides of nine million tonnes of emissions for Ireland spread out over a nine-year period does not sound particularly dramatic. However, if lots of countries were to benefit from the same approach the impact could become dramatic very quickly.
