Labour's gender proposals

Frank007

Labour want to penalise political parties if they don't have women accounting for 20% of their candidates in general elections, and steadily increase this to 40% in the future.

Does anyone actually think this is a good idea, and should we be concerned with this topic under the current climate?

Lemming

Frank007 wrote: »

Labour want to penalise political parties if they don't have women accounting for 20% of their candidates in general elections, and steadily increase this to 40% in the future.

Does anyone actually think this is a good idea, and should we be concerned with this topic under the current climate?

Bad idea. Instead of presenting candidates based on merit, candidates will now run the risk of being presented/limited based on gender. In a country where our political "calibre" is an absolute shambles, why add something like this where not only do we run the gauntlet of mediocre/inept/corrupt politicians, we then will run the risk of disbarring the few capable politicians who make their way on merit in favour of some PC PR stunt.

SoWatchaWant

Yeah, it's a funny time to worry about stuff like that. I don't know why they bother, there's bigger things afoot.

Besides, does it not occur to people that maybe more men than women are interested in politics?

Lilith785

Just one more way for the Gov to try and look good

Pride Fighter

There should be more women in politics. This is not the answer though.

cm2000

ridiculous proposal, there's nothing stopping women running for office, you don't even have to be particularly talented to get in.

Seth Brundle

I don't recall who it was from labour on the last word but it was interesting to hear him get torn apart by Mary Ellen Synon!

eoinbn

I hope we are able to multi-task so that we can manage more than 1 problem at the time! If not maybe we should only allow women to run the country!

I would be opposed. If there is issues stopping them moving up the politial chain then they should be addressed, not bypassed.
If it goes ahead maybe they should stop hiring female nurse/primary teachers to even it up, and while we are at it ensure that 50% of all manual labour jobs are taken up by women.

thebman

Its sexist so no. I have less respect for the Labour party after putting forward such a proposal.

To suggest a woman should get a job over a man even if she is incompetent just to make up numbers is ridiculous.

Not saying all woman would be but at some point this would be bound to occur to meet quotas.

Load of bo**cks to be honest. Did they do a poll and find out that they need to gain more support from women and thought they'd buy this nonsense?

tolosenc

It's a cazy idea. It is gender discrimination. The problem is, they said "20%", and "women", which makes it politically correct. "0% women" is essentially the same policy with the number changed.

It'd never get off the ground.

Soldie

An idiotic proposal. Candidates should be picked based on their abilities, regardless of their gender. If they're all male or all female then so be it.

yoshytoshy

Was there a good reason for the fianna fail TD to leave today ,not sure what party she joined though ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

Pride Fighter wrote: »

There should be more women in politics. This is not the answer though.

It has worked in a number of countries though.

Liam Byrne

Unbelievably sexist. The phrase "positive discrimination" still includes the word "discrimination".

If there are 99% men better at the job that want to go for it, they should get it.
If there are 99% women better at the job that want to go for it, they should get it.

Discounting 19% of those to make up a 20% quota - in either direction - should be outlawed.

kerry4sam

I don't think it is a good idea as it is right now (before they start editing and changing aspects of their proposal). Politicians should be elected on their capabilities and merits and willingness to actually do something for the public besides saying they will do something!

kerry4sam

What I would be for though is for women to get more support within their respective parties though when running for elections. It's not that women don't put their names forward, it's that the support withing the parties is uneven between male and female when contesting elections.

Manic Moran

What if not enough women actually want the job to make up 20%? They're not going to press-gang candidates, are they?

NTM

Liam Byrne

kerry4sam wrote: »

Politicians should be elected on their capabilities and merits and willingness to actually do something for the public besides saying they will do something!

That'd be a first for this country!

kerry4sam

Manic Moran wrote: »

What if not enough women actually want the job to make up 20%? They're not going to press-gang candidates, are they?

NTM

Their are more and more females getting involved in colleges these days and running for national positions then afterwards from the sheer interest after college. I think the interest is there but the support is not

kerry4sam

"Politicians should be elected on their capabilities and merits and willingness to actually do something for the public besides saying they will do something! "

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That'd be a first for this country!

Politicians do start out that way but after time and seeing what methods are getting them further up the ranks etc they tend to loose what personal morals they had when starting and change their general attitudes and perspectives.

Agent Smith

Frank007 wrote: »

Labour want to penalise political parties if they don't have women accounting for 20% of their candidates in general elections, and steadily increase this to 40% in the future.

Does anyone actually think this is a good idea, and should we be concerned with this topic under the current climate?

Honnestly, this is the most retarded idea.

it will get to the point of partys running women in seats where they know they have no chance in hell of getting elected, just to make some retarded quota.


I'd rather have competent people run, regardless of sex.

Pride Fighter

brianthebard wrote: »

It has worked in a number of countries though.

Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

kerry4sam

Does anyone have a link to see what way they actually phrased this?

thebman

brianthebard wrote: »

It has worked in a number of countries though.

Worked to get women into politics or worked for the better of the respective countries?

Define worked basically is what I'm asking you to do as I don't see how it could possibly work for the better of the country.

If you force parties to be made up of 20% women then yes it will be successful in ensuring there are 20% women in each party but to what end? Are they suitable for the job or are there because of their gender?

nesf

Quotas, a taste of the style policy we can expect from Labour's future Government coalition with FG? I sincerely hope not.

sceptre

So that'd be more daughters of sitting TDs running and less sons?

Oh good. Our future is undoubtedly secure.

(I don't have to like, insert a sarcastic smiley for everyone to get my tone, do I?)

amacachi

Nice to see Labour have their finger on the important issues these days.

The fact that they've put time and effort into this at this time rather than something almost constructive means they've no chance of my vote in the next election.