Quotas for female politicians sought

maggy_thatcher

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1105/breaking52.htm

Affirmative action for politicians? This strikes me as completely anti-democratic. If the best person for the job is a man, then so be it - At what point can we be an enlightened species where the gender of a person is not even considered?

What's next? Discrimination based on the colour of your skin or your religious beliefs?

Mr. Presentable

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1105/breaking52.htm

Affirmative action for politicians? This strikes me as completely anti-democratic. If the best person for the job is a man, then so be it - At what point can we be an enlightened species where the gender of a person is not even considered?

What's next? Discrimination based on the colour of your skin or your religious beliefs?

Agreed. There'd be more women in politics if they were electable.

What next, positive discrimination to get b*astards elected? Oh.........

dodgyme

WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO GET IVANA ELECTED - ffs!
may aswell have called it - "I am Ivana - elect me report'

she will promise to represent all feminists equally at the expense of men and women who arent feminists.

Kama

Pff we need to have affirmative action for female politicians whose names aren't Mary. There's a fiendish pro-Mary bias in our electoral system...

maggy_thatcher

Looking at some of her other comments:

Ms Bacik said political party meeting times and venues should be reviewed and adjusted to accommodate the caring responsibilities of party members.

The rules and sitting times of the Oireachtas and of local councils should be changed to make them more “family-friendly”.

In other words - "there's too much of this work lark in politics." There's nothing to stop the "other parent" managing the family side - manipulating the rules to suit somebody who wants to run the family and work a particular job (but not other jobs) is the wrong way to go about it. If working within politics isn't a career option for her because it isn't family friendly enough, then what other career isn't?

MysticalRain

This is a prime example of why people like Ivana Bacik should never be let anywhere near politics. If women are to succeed in politics, it should be on their own merits, not some artificial quota system.

dodgyme

MysticalRain wrote: »

This is a prime example of why people like Ivana Bacik should never be let anywhere.

just to correct you

Alcatel

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Looking at some of her other comments:



In other words - "there's too much of this work lark in politics." There's nothing to stop the "other parent" managing the family side - manipulating the rules to suit somebody who wants to run the family and work a particular job (but not other jobs) is the wrong way to go about it. If working within politics isn't a career option for her because it isn't family friendly enough, then what other career isn't?

As if the Dail doesn't work few enough days... At least when they do sit they sit till the middle of the night when they need to.

To be successful in business, too, you need to be prepared to work hours that are incompatible with young families. Should we demand that businesses with women at the helm should get special tax breaks and higher prices to allow them to head home earlier? That's called market distortion. Same thing for politics.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dannyboy83

This is an unwelcome distraction/obfuscation of the real issues, when there are so many real issues for the electorate to discuss.
For that reason, I'm just going to ignore it.

T runner

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Affirmative action for politicians? This strikes me as completely anti-democratic. If the best person for the job is a man, then so be it - At what point can we be an enlightened species where the gender of a person is not even considered?

Yeah!

It worked in Sweden but they are an unenlightened species. So what if they have one of the best education, health, childare systems in the world. It has nothing to do with their 40% quota or their women MPs, or maybe the women there are just smarter than our ones.

Lets keep putting up the same publican, etc. lardass candidates which their wide collective experiene to do the job for us like theyve always done. A bad as the shower in the dail are, be thankful at least that theres only a handful of women there!

We are 84th worst in gender down from 34th in '92 but theres nothing rotten here, its just the women arent good enough candidates and sure whod vote for one anyway, wha lads!

Liam Byrne

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

This strikes me as completely anti-democratic. If the best person for the job is a man, then so be it - At what point can we be an enlightened species where the gender of a person is not even considered?

What's next? Discrimination based on the colour of your skin or your religious beliefs?

Agree 100%. It's astounding when people who appear to be in favour of a particular cause or stance (e.g. equality) corrupt that by advocating stuff like this.

Hopefully, one of these days the word "discrimination" will be obsolete, but the clue is in the phrase "positive discrimination" - it still includes the word "discrimination", and therefore the objectionable word that we're supposed to be getting rid of stays around and still does damage.

FlutterinBantam

Ivana was on two different radio stations today.

Now the Flutther is a fair minded man and likes to give a fair crack of the whip to people, but Ms Bacik comes across a well heeled tool who has too little to do in her already extremely well paid job.

I would much prefer my hard earned taxpayers money went to support some person who adopted a less cavalier and cardboard cutout approach to politics ,if you don't mind.

She seems to treat it as a game in my opinion and i can assure you she will never plank her arse in Leinster House on The Flutther's vote.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The sarcasm and all she did was have a baby! (Surprise surprise one of the boards main lovers of women puts the oar in.)


She may do (bi-election unwelcome at this time) but it might not be the quality of motherhood that a MP in Sweden for example would be able to give. Having a baby while a TD is probably one of the only ways to be a mother (with a young child) and a TD in Ireland.

maggy_thatcher

T runner wrote: »

Yeah!

It worked in Sweden but they are an unenlightened species. So what if they have one of the best education, health, childare systems in the world. It has nothing to do with their 40% quota or their women MPs, or maybe the women there are just smarter than our ones.

Lets keep putting up the same publican, etc. lardass candidates which their wide collective experiene to do the job for us like theyve always done. A bad as the shower in the dail are, be thankful at least that theres only a handful of women there!

We are 84th worst in gender down from 34th in '92 but theres nothing rotten here, its just the women arent good enough candidates and sure whod vote for one anyway, wha lads!

It's up to the electorate to decide who runs the country. If women feel like they can do better, why don't they come up to the plate and actually stand for election? Stacking the odds in favour of women just cheapens the victories of those women currently in power.

projectmayhem

T runner wrote: »

Yeah!

It worked in Sweden but they are an unenlightened species. So what if they have one of the best education, health, childare systems in the world. It has nothing to do with their 40% quota or their women MPs, or maybe the women there are just smarter than our ones.

Lets keep putting up the same publican, etc. lardass candidates which their wide collective experiene to do the job for us like theyve always done. A bad as the shower in the dail are, be thankful at least that theres only a handful of women there!

We are 84th worst in gender down from 34th in '92 but theres nothing rotten here, its just the women arent good enough candidates and sure whod vote for one anyway, wha lads!

In fairness, Sweden is a far more evolved and responsible society then Ireland. On top of that, they have the gender equality thing in place over 10 years now, and undoubtedly it's been tweaked and changed since first introduced.

While our politicians are idiots at the best, and publicans at the worst, they are elected democratically. Party politics may dictate who we get to vote on - so then maybe the parties themselves should have a rule whereby 50% of candidates put forward for any election process should be male/female. Then let the people decide as per usual who they want "in".

Having such a strict quota based on gender raises a whole plethora of questions in a "new" Ireland. Should 10% be black to represent their populous in this country, 20% Polish, etc. etc.? The list could go on. It also raises the issue of people getting jobs in Irish politics without proper merit - something we can question today, let alone if a quota is brought in.

Bad idea for the country, but probably one political parties should look at themselves at a grass roots level. Let them filter the good women and men up before shoving them in front of the people in order to fill a quota.

Agent Smith

Personally, I think quota's are a load of bull.


I want to vote for the best person, I couldnt Care less if they had a penis or not.



If a woman is being refused to be put on the ballot based on her being female, thats different. However Political Parties must Be able to Pick the best person, Not a Woman (or man) to make up a quota.

maggy_thatcher

projectmayhem wrote: »

While our politicians are idiots at the best, and publicans at the worst, they are elected democratically. Party politics may dictate who we get to vote on - so then maybe the parties themselves should have a rule whereby 50% of candidates put forward for any election process should be male/female. Then let the people decide as per usual who they want "in".

That's what she's trying to do - force the parties to have a minimum of 33% of females on the ballot, with "severe" penalties if they don't comply. Personally I think it's a terrible idea - it means you won't necessarily get the best candidate for the job, just the best woman (who may or may not be the same person).

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is a horrible, nasty sentiment that ignores the importance of parenthood in our society and the role that men play as fathers.

P. Breathnach

I note the misogyny evident in many of the posts here, and I move from my previously neutral position towards favouring some system that assists gender equity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ressem

I don't know about that. How about if parties needed to put an even number of men/women on the ballot. Might slow down the major candidates from meeting the quota and make first preference votes more important when eliminating candidates from smaller parties.

At the moment the political parties and incumbents try so hard to control the introduction of new candidates in case it dilutes their vote, offering one candidate from each geographical area and throwing hissy fits when another candidate from the same party campaigns for votes in their area.
Many (Most?) have no distinguishing attribute other than proximity and party.

Screwing up this nepotism ridden rigged game the political parties play by adding a few candidates desperate to grab attention from their neighbour might be nice. Even if only for one election.

Unfortunately it's more likely to result in parties choosing unelectable numpties from the emptiest corner of the constituency.

sceptre

My belief that a meritocracy is good in a democracy doesn't allow me to support the allocation of space in the lower house of parliament to different groups based solely on whether their genitals are inside them or outside them.

The upper house has provisions for electing members of different interest groups. Perhaps a few places could be allocated there for either the peepee or hoohoo group, depending on which needs the special needs of their community met in the Oireachtas as a result of being under-represented in the lower house.

Proposals like this eschew electing the representatives the population considers the best in favour of electing candidates the population considers second-, third- or further-down-the-list-best. I don't care what sex a candidate is when I'm casting my vote and I'd rather the person counting the votes didn't either.

Sand

Quotas of candidates are easily circumvented by running men in the contestable constituencies and packing the no hope contituencies with enough women to make up the 33% quota. If the parties are as male chauvanistic, trying to keep the good women down, as the call for quotas implies then a quota isnt going to do present much of a challenge for those pigs to circumvent.

Gender imbalance is in and of itself not a major issue. The poor quality of the elected TDs and the political discourse in the country is a major issue. We need to concentrate on measures that encourage smart, motivated and nationally minded TDs. A party list system might accomplish this, whilst also improving female representation as parties would hopefully select on the basis of competence and motivation, as opposed to local or tribal loyalties.

Poor female participation in the Dail might quite simply reflect women not finding weeks and months of canvassing, constituency work, horse trading and all the hassle associated with our feudal democratic political system as being all that attractive or as taking priority over other issues they consider more important. Plenty of our TDs simply revel in being the big man in the village, perhaps less women in general are interested in the sacrifices needed to be in a position to hand out favours in exchange for votes and power.

That might be difficult for politically minded women to accept or understand, but we have at least 50% female voters - the same voters returning largely male Dails: with every party looking for an edge, if grabbing 50% of the vote was as simple as running women candidates every party would be doing it. Women voters on the surface at least are not voting on gender lines, why should their representitives be determined by gender lines?

Lets face it, theres a subtle gender bias in the belief that political discourse will somehow improve if theres relatively more female participation.

Ms Bacik said women no longer faced overt discrimination in their entry to politics...Ms Bacik there were now 23 women TDs out of 166 deputies and if nothing was done the situation would never improve. “We’ve assumed women’s participation would improve but it hasn’t.”

This to me say Bacik recognises that theres nothing really stopping women running for office if they want to, but for some infuriating reason they dont seem to want be a TD as badly as Bacik wants to be. Thats really got to rub salt in the wound I suppose.

irish_bob

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

That's what she's trying to do - force the parties to have a minimum of 33% of females on the ballot, with "severe" penalties if they don't comply. Personally I think it's a terrible idea - it means you won't necessarily get the best candidate for the job, just the best woman (who may or may not be the same person).

democrocy takes a back seat so ivana can witness her right on agenda take shape , listening to her on newstalk today debate mary o rourke , her condescending i know whats better for everyone lecture was obnoxious in the extreme , luckily the delightfull mammy o rourke was there to bat for common sense and the plain people of ireland

irish_bob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

might be a case of , i felt offended therefore i was , you see a lot of this nowadays

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm sorry, I thought you were being sarcastic. Genuinely.

A sure sign I'm spending too much time in AH. My apologies.

Soldie

A completely ridiculous idea.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Hopefully, one of these days the word "discrimination" will be obsolete, but the clue is in the phrase "positive discrimination" - it still includes the word "discrimination", and therefore the objectionable word that we're supposed to be getting rid of stays around and still does damage.

Positive discrimination is only to counter act a discriminatory imbalance. The idea is to undo the discrimination. Other methods have not worked. In Ireland and since 1990 we have gone backwards from 34th in the world to 87th. This would put us at the bottom of any 1st or 2nd world country list. Something seems to be wrong with our system.

Sand wrote: »

Quotas of candidates are easily circumvented by running men in the contestable constituencies and packing the no hope contituencies with enough women to make up the 33% quota. If the parties are as male chauvanistic, trying to keep the good women down, as the call for quotas implies then a quota isnt going to do present much of a challenge for those pigs to circumvent.

It is the traditional system of politicking here that is geared towards men. It is not really that the parties are actively chauvinistic towards women.

Look at what might happen if the quota was imposed: To get their 33% the parties would have to make the election/canvassing process more appealing/accessible to women.
If , for example, there were talented women the party sought who had kids the party would have to restructure its meetings/canvassing etc to allow this person to care for her children and go for TD.

Also the party would need to free up more of her time when canvassing or when shes a TD. (If she feels the commitments to being a TD are too time consuming she wont do it).

Thus the party may have to look at how it manages for example constituency offices. It would have to look at reducing the workload of the TDs for all of the work not directly related to what a TD should be doing.

This will make a polical career accessible to many more women but just as crucially it will make a political career accessable to many more men.

The dearth in talent in the dail today is because politics is only accessible to a small group of (mainly) men from a small group of professions. The pre-domiannce of this group would be broken by a quota system for the reasons I explained.

Imposing positive discrimination based on gender is a proven way to open up politics to a much wider (and therefore more talented) group.

It worked a treat in Sweden. But it was necessary there, even though Sweden was one of the most gender equal countries in Europe at the time.
How much more necessary is it here?

maggy_thatcher

T runner wrote: »

This will make a polical career accessible to many more women but just as crucially it will make a political career accessable to many more men.

How on Earth would blocking 33% of the ballot papers because of your gender make a political career more accessible to men??

uberwolf

if the quota system doesn't work, maybe we could then start adding a weighting to the votes received by women?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dodgyme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Look! Ivana needs to get into the Dail before the Senate is abolished. She has tried a coupla times but no luck, did she not try europe before also?. If the quota insisted that Ivana gets elected no matter .. I'd say she would be ok with that.

For me this is a case of shoot the messenger.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's not specific to politics but laws and, possible more importantly, attitudes surrounding child care can still be a hindrance. Men get no paternal leave, forcing women to take the time off instead.

And if you want to have a family and a political career, well, someone has to be at home looking after the baby. You have to find a partner willing to do that.

The question of role models as well is an important one. It's no coincidence that 70% of 7 year-old boys want to be a sports star when they grow up - they're surrounded by images of successful male sports stars. Similarly if the number of female politicians goes down, it can impact on the likelihood of younger women or girls even considering a future in politics, as it's seen as a "male profession".

maggy_thatcher

taconnol wrote: »

It's not specific to politics but laws and, possible more importantly, attitudes surrounding child care can still be a hindrance. Men get no paternal leave, forcing women to take the time off instead.

So change the laws -- remove maternity leave and paternity leave, replacing it with parent (1) and parent (2). Let either of them choose amongst themselves which option to take, rather than try to offset it.

taconnol wrote: »

And if you want to have a family and a political career, well, someone has to be at home looking after the baby. You have to find a partner willing to do that.

Other careers work the same way; why does politics have to be different?

taconnol wrote: »

The question of role models as well is an important one. It's no coincidence that 70% of 7 year-old boys want to be a sports star when they grow up - they're surrounded by images of successful male sports stars. Similarly if the number of female politicians goes down, it can impact on the likelihood of younger women or girls even considering a future in politics, as it's seen as a "male profession".

And how many children want to be politicians? In an ideal world, we should say "a person accomplished this", rather than "a man accomplished this", etc. To divide them belittles the accomplishments of the "other" gender. In today's society, you are accused of being racist if you push one race over another...why should gender be any different?

Macha

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

So change the laws -- remove maternity leave and paternity leave, replacing it with parent (1) and parent (2). Let either of them choose amongst themselves which option to take, rather than try to offset it.

Absolutely agree.

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Other careers work the same way; why does politics have to be different?

I don't think it's different at all. I don't agree with Bacik's politics-specific comments.

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

And how many children want to be politicians? In an ideal world, we should say "a person accomplished this", rather than "a man accomplished this", etc. To divide them belittles the accomplishments of the "other" gender. In today's society, you are accused of being racist if you push one race over another...why should gender be any different?

You may not like it but that's how people's brains work - children look at gender-specific role models. It's not about kids wanting to become a politician, it's whether they view it as a male-dominated profession, which it is.

As for "pushing one gender over another", research has shown that the problem is not when female candidates come before the electorate but in being chosen as candidates. I'll try to find the states - I've had this discussion on Boards before.

Het-Field

Mary Harney and Maggie Thatcher should be role models to all women. They bucked any trend which would suggest that womens ability to forge ahead in the political realm is fettered by their gender. Ms Thatcher is particulalry impressive as her gender never prevented her from standing up to vested interests.

I also recall Liz O Donnell was one of Bertie's deputies during the Good Friday Agreement Talks. Geraldine Kennedys interaction with the political realm lead to her becoming one of the most influential people in Irish journalism. People like Maire Geogeghan Quinn took on the conservatives within FF.

Bacik is your typical bra burning feminist. She doesnt do anything for the movement, and is nothing like the aformentioned women

dodgyme

taconnol wrote: »

I don't think it's different at all. I don't agree with Bacik's politics-specific comments.

Bacik is politics specific out of self interest.

I mean I know all the arguments about materal/paternal leave etc, but look around and see that the wave of unemployment has hit men more so then women and from my experience (which often is a bit off the norm) more men then women are now looking after the children (out of the couples I know)

Also over the last number of years amost all the women I know earned more then their husbands/partners (with very similar qualifications etc, although that is v subjective etc), which maybe why now they are working while the bloke is minding the kids i.e. woman stays on working. This is an issue Ivana isnt interested in nor is she interested in the suicide rate amoungst men which I believe has something to do with failings in the education system where it is not viewed as masculine to be intelligent. Hence fellas are driving around with the status of a supt up honda civic doing doughnuts on cross roads to get their validation or turning to crime.

There is a crisis amongst the male pop which needs addressing but wont be. Much less men in teaching now, doctors, very few nurses etc etc, but Ivana sticks to politics because it suits her. This is the same woman who wrote articles a few years back giving out about fathers looking for rights to their children?

starbelgrade

Het-Field wrote: »

Mary Harney and Maggie Thatcher should be role models to all women. They bucked any trend which would suggest that womens ability to forge ahead in the political realm is fettered by their gender. Ms Thatcher is particulalry impressive as her gender never prevented her from standing up to vested interests.

Yeah - great role models for women. Harney presides over a crumbling health system, whilst struggling with her own obvious health issues (and not-so-obvious, but not-so public ones).

Thatcher left the British government with massive dole queues, a destroyed manufacturing industry & instigated her very own property bubble by selling off coucil houses. And let's not forget her sucessful attempt at being re-elected by distracting the public by engaging in a pointless war in the Maldives. Oh yeah, and setting up a reliance on a financial system that has repercussions to this very day.

As far as role models go for women, I'd prefer the Spice Girls. They may be talentless, but at least the damage they inflicted was only to the musical tastes of the masses & not their health, wealth or well-being.

Sorry 'bout the rant, but some things have to be said.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

starbelgrade

If you introduce quotas for women, where do you stop? Male white men dominate the political arena in Ireland, but women in this country are hardly a minority or repressed group.

Sand

@T Runner

Positive discrimination is only to counter act a discriminatory imbalance. The idea is to undo the discrimination. Other methods have not worked. In Ireland and since 1990 we have gone backwards from 34th in the world to 87th. This would put us at the bottom of any 1st or 2nd world country list. Something seems to be wrong with our system.

I count 18 female TDs in the 1992 Dail, according to the IT article there is currently 23. Ireland has not gotten "worse" in female representation, it has gotten "better". In the space of three elections, the number of female TDs has increased by roughly 33%.

This is not a revolution - but it is progress. The gender imbalance will resolve itself without the need for social engineering efforts on the part of Bacik.

I'm actually listening to Bacik on the radio here and shes claiming womens participation has dropped...shes wrong.

It is the traditional system of politicking here that is geared towards men. It is not really that the parties are actively chauvinistic towards women.

So lets fix the root cause of the issue - the traditional system of politics in Ireland. As I noted previously there is no indication whatsoever that having more women TDs will somehow magically make the Dail a better place....Mary Coughlan for example.

What we need are a better class of politician, irrelevant of creed, colour or gender.

Bolting on some awkward, easily evaded, ham fisted quota system to what is basically a failed system is doomed to failure.

If , for example, there were talented women the party sought who had kids the party would have to restructure its meetings/canvassing etc to allow this person to care for her children and go for TD.

Or like every other working mother they could use childcare, either professional or through family support. Male politicians make sacrifices too to make successful politicial careers.

What I find amusing is that you automatically assume child rearing is the womans responsibility...what about the politicians husband? Why cant he take care of the children? Honestly, if anyone disagreeing with Bacik was to make such assumptions...

The dearth in talent in the dail today is because politics is only accessible to a small group of (mainly) men from a small group of professions. The pre-domiannce of this group would be broken by a quota system for the reasons I explained.

Here again is the subtle bias inherent in the belief that more women will mean better politics merely on the basis of gender.

Het-Field

starbelgrade wrote: »

Yeah - great role models for women. Harney presides over a crumbling health system, whilst struggling with her own obvious health issues (and not-so-obvious, but not-so public ones).

Thatcher left the British government with massive dole queues, a destroyed manufacturing industry & instigated her very own property bubble by selling off coucil houses. And let's not forget her sucessful attempt at being re-elected by distracting the public by engaging in a pointless war in the Maldives. Oh yeah, and setting up a reliance on a financial system that has repercussions to this very day.

As far as role models go for women, I'd prefer the Spice Girls. They may be talentless, but at least the damage they inflicted was only to the musical tastes of the masses & not their health, wealth or well-being.

Sorry 'bout the rant, but some things have to be said.

You have to divorce the execution of their politics from their electoral achievements.

The health system in Ireland is (contrary to popular belief) not crumbling. The implementation of the two tier system has been freeing up beds in the publci sector like nobodys business. Ireland has been ncrementally becoming a far safer place to contract cancer then many of our European counterparts. Its always beyond a shame to hear of mess ups in the system. However, as the Health Ministery is in the business of dealing with lives, any one fcuk up will not be tolerated.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can prove that the percentage of women in our dail is about the lowest in the 1st or 2nd world. And rather than conclude that there is something wrong specifically with Irish women I would conclude that Irish women face difficulties with the system here (childcare being one).

How is it geared towards men? If Mary Harney and Mary Coughlan can both rise through the system to become Tánaiste, and if Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese can both rise through the system to become President, why can't other women do the same?

Because it is not possible to have children and be a TD unless you are very, very rich. Mary Coughlan got her entry into politics by virtue of the fact that her father was a TD (and died).

There are more publicans in the Dail than there are women. Can you explain this?

Anyone who can't handle the time commitments of being a TD shouldn't try to become a TD.

You see, the time commitments of being a TD includes a significant portion of extra time not essential to being a TD. Cut this time out and move meetings to a time more conducive to people who want to see their children at least once a day, and you have a far greater pool of people, men and women who can become TDs.

I'm not going to elect someone so that she can spend her time sitting at home watching Sponge Bob with her 3-year-old.

i.e No mothers need apply or atleast only mothers who can afford full time child care. So only women who havent had children yet or whos children are grown up are suitable candidates in your opinion? Sadly, judging by this post there are many men who share this point of view.

A career in politics is accessible to anyone, male or female, for whom the electorate will vote in significant numbers.

It is clearly not accessible to a woman with children. Shell only spend her time "sitting at home watching Sponge Bob with her 3-year-old."

starbelgrade

Het-Field wrote: »

You have to divorce the execution of their politics from their electoral achievements.

B*llox. Thatcher was a tyrant & the HSE is a f*cking joke. I can think of a few better ways to use execution to achieve achievements.

uberwolf

T runner wrote: »

Mary Coughlan got her entry into politics by virtue of the fact that her father was a TD (and died).

There are more publicans in the Dail than there are women. Can you explain this?

well you've happened on the two issues I'd be addressing if I have carte blanché to re engineer democracy

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Because it takes a hell of a lot of hard work and long hours to get to the stage where you are even considered as a candidate within your party. It's not like your political career begins when you get elected.

Personally, I'd like to see someone do a class break-down of politicians because that would be interesting.

maggy_thatcher

T runner wrote: »

Because it is not possible to have children and be a TD unless you are very, very rich. Mary Coughlan got her entry into politics by virtue of the fact that her father was a TD (and died).

Or more accurately - it's not possible to have children and be a TD and have both parents working, without being very rich? Isn't that the same with most careers?

T runner wrote: »

i.e No mothers need apply or atleast only mothers who can afford full time child care. So only women who havent had children yet or whos children are grown up are suitable candidates in your opinion? Sadly, judging by this post there are many men who share this point of view.

No, it means that if one parent wants a full-time career, sacrifices need to be made. Nowhere does it dictate that it has to be the mother to stay at home. Either the father can do it; or they can pay for full time child care.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This discussion is focusing so much on maternity leave etc because its clearly extremely difficult in this country to be a mother and a TD at the same time.

Your statistics demonstrate this quite admirably.