Fintan O'Toole's Petition

Skrynesaver

Fintan O'Toole has finally got his site up and running and has put a petition on it effectively asking candidates in the forthcoming elections to sign up for the following changes.

1. SHARE THE PAIN
No one paid from the public purse should earn more than €100,000 during the period of the emergency.

2. PUT THE PARISH PUMP BACK IN THE PARISH
Real local democracy, paid for by local taxes, and using direct democracy at every level, must be established.

3. END CLIENTILISM
Change the electoral system that turns TDs into constituency fixers. Replace it with a mix of direct election and a list system similar to that used for the Scottish parliament.

4. CUT THE FAT
Reduce the Dail to 100 members. Either transform the Senate within 12 months into a genuine forum for civic society or abolish it.

5. MAKE PARLIAMENT WORK.
Stop the use of the guillotine system to pass laws that have not been scrutinised. Give Dail committees the powers to examine proposals for spending before it happens and to hold those who spend public money accountable. Make senior public servants responsible for their decisions and actions.

6. BRING WOMEN INTO POLITICS
Cut public subsidies to political parties unless at least 30 per cent of their candidates are female.

7. END IMPUNITY
Conduct an urgent review of company law to ensure that white collar criminals are brought to justice.

8. GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS
Ban all significant private donations to political parties. Make parties publish annual accounts. Register and control lobbyists. Protect whistleblowers.

9. RESTORE THE RIGHT TO KNOW
Bring back the original Freedom of Information Act.

10. NO MORE CRONYISM
Make all appointments to State and public bodies open to public competition and Dail scrutiny. Ban any individual from being a director of more than three companies or public bodies.

While a bit nebulous and under defined in places it seems like a good way to put candidates on notice of the standards we're hoping to hold them to

Red Alert

I don't agree with Point 6, but otherwise it's all good.

metrovelvet

While I dont agree with everything there is enough there that I would sign that petition.

Tim Robbins

metrovelvet wrote: »

While I dont agree with everything there is enough there that I would sign that petition.

Not bad but don't agree with the 30% women. You could make similar arguments for quotas such as:
1. No more than 3% of the Dail should come from legal background
2. 90% of the cabinet must not have gone to private schools

and all sorts of crazy stuff.

It has to be a meritocracy.

Butch Cassidy

Expect the knives to come out and the words "bleeding heart, middle class pink intellectual & liberal" to come out.

O'Toole was criticising policies that did little to address inequality and poverty as far back as 2002/3 and wrote a book about the end of the celtic tiger back then - "After the BAll".

Critical commentary of policy was brushed away and many were told to kill themselves. It's time to stop the senseless anti-thought and self-defeating practise of insulting anyone who puts forward ideas.

Fair play to him for the petition. It might finally agitate some debate and discussion in society.

Inverse to the power of one!

Red Alert wrote: »

I don't agree with Point 6, but otherwise it's all good.

I really dislike positive discrimination, as it is discrimination at the end of the day, but.....if parties can't at least find a few women with enough merit to make 30%, then it should at the very least be published.

Generally, although I wouldn't agree with some of what FOT says, these are a fair ten points to push for.

20Cent

Signed. Will be interesting to see what politicians sign it.

PKen

1. SHARE THE PAIN
"No one paid from the public purse should earn more than €100,000 during the period of the emergency".
Fintan O'Toole seems to think, that anyone earning up to €100,000 is on a moderate income. Why not cap it, at €50,000? What could they do? - go to the Private Sector? They'd probably be paid less there.

4. CUT THE FAT
"Reduce the Dail to 100 members. Either transform the Senate within 12 months into a genuine forum for civic society or abolish it".
No mention of our bloated Public Sector. He always makes a distinction between our Elected Representatives and the Civil Service in general. Are they not both part of the problem?

7. END IMPUNITY
"Conduct an urgent review of company law to ensure that white collar criminals are brought to justice".
What does he mean by "white collar criminals"? Why not include Union bosses like Jack O'Connor (Siptu)? After all, he and David Begg (ICTU) contributed to our deficit, with the silly pay increases during Benchmarking.

10. NO MORE CRONYISM
"Make all appointments to State and public bodies open to public competition and Dail scrutiny. Ban any individual from being a director of more than three companies or public bodies".
The same "Infected" Civil Service will oversee who gets the jobs. Does he nievely believe that our Political Masters and the Civil Service are not part of the same "Clique"?

dan_d

Signed.
While I don't wholly agree with all points, I definitely agree that it's high time that someone did something. Fintan O Toole, (while I'm not a fan) is lucky enough to be a relatively public figure, and in a position to be able to make as much noise about something like this as possible.

HarryPotter41

PKen wrote: »

1. SHARE THE PAIN
"No one paid from the public purse should earn more than €100,000 during the period of the emergency".
Fintan O'Toole seems to think, that anyone earning up to €100,000 is on a moderate income. Why not cap it, at €50,000? What could they do? - go to the Private Sector? They'd probably be paid less there.

4. CUT THE FAT
"Reduce the Dail to 100 members. Either transform the Senate within 12 months into a genuine forum for civic society or abolish it".
No mention of our bloated Public Sector. He always makes a distinction between our Elected Representatives and the Civil Service in general. Are they not both part of the problem?

7. END IMPUNITY
"Conduct an urgent review of company law to ensure that white collar criminals are brought to justice".
What does he mean by "white collar criminals"? Why not include Union bosses like Jack O'Connor (Siptu)? After all, he and David Begg (ICTU) contributed to our deficit, with the silly pay increases during Benchmarking.

10. NO MORE CRONYISM
"Make all appointments to State and public bodies open to public competition and Dail scrutiny. Ban any individual from being a director of more than three companies or public bodies".
The same "Infected" Civil Service will oversee who gets the jobs. Does he nievely believe that our Political Masters and the Civil Service are not part of the same "Clique"?

Made it all the way to post 8 before the civil service bashing started , I am impressed. Btw, I am in no way "infected" by the Civil Service.

RDM_83 again

It would be nice if instead of point 6, there was some complex system that rated the relatedness of the candidates ie 1 point for brother 1/2 for nephew cousin etc. A meritocracy is best but personally I think that would do more good for Ireland than increased gender diversity waiting to see what sisters and aunts pop up out when FG and Lab get rolling

steelcityblues

#6 is just PC nonsense

#4 has the danger of backfiring, with representatives of very few parties making up the entire house, thus preventing real diversity of politicians

Otherwise, well thought out by Mr O'Toole!

Butch Cassidy

Do any women posters here oppose #6?

Liam Byrne

Point 6 is still discrimination.

Replace that with "Accountability that implies that if anyone makes any single decision that wastes more than 5% of their budget, they are automatically fired with no pension" and I'll vote for it.

randomchild

Signed, though how he came thought six was a good idea is beyond me...

Aka Ishur

Banning a person from being a director of more than 3 private companies is completely unworkable and impossible to make law.

BehindTheScenes

Aka Ishur wrote: »

Banning a person from being a director of more than 3 private companies is completely unworkable and impossible to make law.

I agree. It should read that your duty is to the country and that all private work is ceased while you are a representative of your country.

PeterIanStaker

Some good points in there that make sense. Not happy with #6 though, gender quotas?

CnaG

I don't want to derail this conversation too much, but #6 is coming under serious fire on this thread so I suppose someone has to do this.

(deep breath)

You say candidates should be selected on merit; let's be honest here, most candidates are not currently selected on merit. A lot of candidates are selected either because they've been the TD for their area for years and everyone knows them, or because they've been the councillor for their area for years, and most people know them, or because their family is in the business, and everyone in the cumann who selects the candidates knows them. How could a new 'discrimination' make it any worse?

Besides, no new candidate (no matter how good they are in their various other areas of expertise) really knows how politics works. It's only with experience that they can actually really merit their position, if they ever do.

You want rid of the hacks and gombeens who wrecked the country? You need a new pool of potential candidates. What pool of potential candidates is hardly tapped in Ireland?* Women. So long as the parties don't go all Berlusconi on us (always a risk), or just select women straight from the dynasties as usual, it should I'm sure be possible to find reasonable numbers of women who would make good, decent, thoughtful, knowledgeable and articulate candidates. Women do, after all, make up 50% of the population.

In short, #6 is not such a bad idea as the people here are making it out to be. Yeah, sure he could have phrased it to encompass a wider range of potential new candidates than just women, but I think he's trying to be controversial, hoping it will spark debate. There hasn't been much debate here so far, just the usual 'oh it's PC nonsense' dismissal. I'll be interested to see your responses.



*apart from politics boardsies

CnaG

CnaG wrote: »

So long as the parties don't go all Berlusconi on us (always a risk), or just select women straight from the dynasties as usual, it should I'm sure be possible to find reasonable numbers of women who would make good, decent, thoughtful, knowledgeable and articulate candidates. Women do, after all, make up 50% of the population.

Having said that, the same should really be true of male candidates and, in the main, political parties don't seem to have done a particularly good job of selecting them. So perhaps the selection procedure overall needs a good overhaul?

MagicMarker

CnaG wrote: »

I don't want to derail this conversation too much, but #6 is coming under serious fire on this thread so I suppose someone has to do this.

(deep breath)

You say candidates should be selected on merit; let's be honest here, most candidates are not currently selected on merit. A lot of candidates are selected either because they've been the TD for their area for years and everyone knows them, or because they've been the councillor for their area for years, and most people know them, or because their family is in the business, and everyone in the cumann who selects the candidates knows them. How could a new 'discrimination' make it any worse?

Besides, no new candidate (no matter how good they are in their various other areas of expertise) really knows how politics works. It's only with experience that they can actually really merit their position, if they ever do.

You want rid of the hacks and gombeens who wrecked the country? You need a new pool of potential candidates. What pool of potential candidates is hardly tapped in Ireland?* Women. So long as the parties don't go all Berlusconi on us (always a risk), or just select women straight from the dynasties as usual, it should I'm sure be possible to find reasonable numbers of women who would make good, decent, thoughtful, knowledgeable and articulate candidates. Women do, after all, make up 50% of the population.

In short, #6 is not such a bad idea as the people here are making it out to be. Yeah, sure he could have phrased it to encompass a wider range of potential new candidates than just women, but I think he's trying to be controversial, hoping it will spark debate. There hasn't been much debate here so far, just the usual 'oh it's PC nonsense' dismissal. I'll be interested to see your responses.



*apart from politics boardsies

If we need a new pool of candidates then why just target women? Why not target everyone?

nesf

10. NO MORE CRONYISM
Make all appointments to State and public bodies open to public competition and Dail scrutiny. Ban any individual from being a director of more than three companies or public bodies.

First part I wholeheartedly support. The second part is odd, yes about public bodies but wtf about limiting being a director of a private company? There should be absolutely no restriction on the amount of companies you can set up, run or be a part in!

meglome

I'd love if there were more woman in the Dail but forcing this is wrong. And limiting the number of directorships is also wrong. As long as it's all above board it should be fine to have company directorships.

I signed up.

BehindTheScenes

meglome wrote: »

And limiting the number of directorships is also wrong. As long as it's all above board it should be fine to have company directorships.

Why?

If I worked for an accounting company and they paid me €100,000 per annum I doubt they would be impressed with me devoting some of my time to my own private business. Let's be realistic about this, that's a lot of money, if it's not enough money for you per annum then maybe your interests don't involve serving the country. After all the Dáil is there for TDs to serve the nation.

meglome

BehindTheScenes wrote: »

Why?

If I worked for an accounting company and they paid me €100,000 per annum I doubt they would be impressed with me devoting some of my time to my own private business. Let's be realistic about this, that's a lot of money, if it's not enough money for you per annum then maybe your interests don't involve serving the country. After all the Dáil is there for TDs to serve the nation.

As I said as long as it's all above board.. and... there is no conflict of interest. Serving the nation doesn't mean that 24/7 your life is taken up with this. It should be a positive thing to have entrepreneurial people in the Dail.

CnaG

MagicMarker wrote: »

If we need a new pool of candidates then why just target women? Why not target everyone?

Yeah, you're right. Why not target everyone? Wipe the board. I'd be ok with that so long as 'everyone' includes women and the end result produces roughly as many women candidates as men. If women and men are truly equal in this day and age, that shouldn't actually be a problem right?

Unfortunately, there is no clean slate here. It'd be nice if there was but there isn't. We have incumbents. Most of them are men (TDs - 87%). Most of their likely sucessors (county councillors) are also men (84%). We also have, peculiar to women, things which act if not as barriers certainly as deterrents for many potential female candidates. We have a 'masculine culture of politics'. There is this idea that femininity and power are incompatible. We live in a society (represented by its media) which scrutinises and lambasts women in particular on their appearance. And then there is the continued social reality that many women work the 'double day'. The double day in particular limits the amount of time these women (who could potentially be bloody good TDs given the chance) can spend hob-nobbing in the evening, which is when most political party meetings are on. Thus reducing the likelihood of their selection.

Suppose the only way to get women into politics in Ireland is to force Irish politics and political parties to find and run female politicians. After all, the parties don't tend to look outside their usual pool for candidates, ever. And they've had almost 40 years to find female candidates voluntarily. I find it hard to believe that decent female candidates can't be found, only that the parties aren't trying to find them. Requiring a certain percentage of candidates to be female, or face financial sanction, would at least make them look harder.

The same goes for other unusual but meritorious candidates. I suggest 1% of all candidates running for election should be boardsies.

BehindTheScenes

meglome wrote: »

As I said as long as it's all above board.. and... there is no conflict of interest. Serving the nation doesn't mean that 24/7 your life is taken up with this. It should be a positive thing to have entrepreneurial people in the Dail.

I think it would be difficult to maintain a neutral position if you could take advantage of a situation. A lack of impartiality in my opinion is just to difficult to maintain. I feel that it is this lack of impartiality that has taken us some distance down the road that we are now on.

I agree working as a TD doesn't have to take over your life. I do though want my TD to put in a solid 9-5, 5 days a week for 47 weeks of the year. I don't think there is time to run a business outside of 9-5 when you factor in family and travel time. During 9-5 I want them working and thinking on the interests of this nation or their community not thinking how to increase there share of the market in the world of business.

I agree it is a positive thing to have entrepreneurial people in the Dáil. I run my own business and in my opinion very few entrepreneurs would have the time to work for a constituency and grow a business. There is a decision to be made and it's your business or the Dáil. It's not possible to do both to your optimum ability.

Now what I want and what happens are two different things.

The Volt

Agree with posters re: Point 6. I can't see beyond the best person for the job. If that happens to be a woman then who cares?

Butch Cassidy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Point 6 is still discrimination.

Replace that with "Accountability that implies that if anyone makes any single decision that wastes more than 5% of their budget, they are automatically fired with no pension" and I'll vote for it.

It's a bit much to say it's discrimination. Are you really weeping if a Jackie Healy-Rae or Noel O'Flynn is kept out in place of a few extra women?

Surely it's more along the lines of NI with their quotas there for say the police force and so on?

meglome wrote: »

I'd love if there were more woman in the Dail but forcing this is wrong. And limiting the number of directorships is also wrong. As long as it's all above board it should be fine to have company directorships.

I signed up.

Other countries have "forced it" via quotas and gradually the quotas are removed however the women have stayed in politics - the quota's are merely the means to an end. I don't think morality comes into it really.

As for directorships, see TASC's mapping the golden circle and ask yourself if it really is "above board". How there isn't conflicts of interests with so much cross over I don't know...

sdanseo

What's the betting FIntan's annual income exceeds €100,000? It doesn't come from the public purse granted but it does mean his statement is biased. I agree with a cap but not that low because there has to be a pay difference between Taoiseach, Minister, Junior, Sec Gen, Asst Sec etc etc. Otherwise why bother going for promotion - you'll end up with egotistic pricks running departments who are only applying for rank, not pay.

30% women is rubbish, there should be no such quotas. People WILL elect women, and if they're worth electing, they'll become TD's.

100 is too few TD's. 140 odd as per FG is good. Five seat constituencies are a waste. Smaller constituencies like the UK with maybe 2-3 TD's each, rather than 3 in some, 5 in others etc. Keeping PR voting is of course sacrosact.

Nobody paid from the public purse should be allowed sit on the board of any private or public company unless it is state owned.

Rockfish

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Point 6 is still discrimination.

Replace that with "Accountability that implies that if anyone makes any single decision that wastes more than 5% of their budget, they are automatically fired with no pension" and I'll vote for it.

What are you on about? If who wastes what budget???

The Corinthian

randomchild wrote: »

Signed, though how he came thought six was a good idea is beyond me...

I won't sign because of it. Remember, if enough people sign it then someone will point to that point and claim that it has widespread support - despite the fact that most people have signed the petition despite it.

Slipping crap like that into otherwise popular petitions or legislation is an old political trick; a Trojan horse to promote the unpopular on the coattails of the popular.

So rather than signing, I suggest you email him and tell him that you'd love to sign, except for that clause.

enda1

1. SHARE THE PAIN
No one paid from the public purse should earn more than €100,000 during the period of the emergency.

The single worst idea in this petition. You will just lose the good people in the system. The top researchers and university officials, top level civil servants, doctors etc. etc. Really terrible socialist nonsense.

2. PUT THE PARISH PUMP BACK IN THE PARISH
Real local democracy, paid for by local taxes, and using direct democracy at every level, must be established.

This would add a huge cost and bureaucracy to the country. Something I don't think any really want if they sat down and thought about it.

3. END CLIENTILISM
Change the electoral system that turns TDs into constituency fixers. Replace it with a mix of direct election and a list system similar to that used for the Scottish parliament.

Debatable.

4. CUT THE FAT
Reduce the Dail to 100 members. Either transform the Senate within 12 months into a genuine forum for civic society or abolish it.

I like this idea. Though on one hand he wants more direct representation, then he wants less representation.

5. MAKE PARLIAMENT WORK.
Stop the use of the guillotine system to pass laws that have not been scrutinised. Give Dail committees the powers to examine proposals for spending before it happens and to hold those who spend public money accountable. Make senior public servants responsible for their decisions and actions.

The first sentence makes a lot of sense. Though the second is just words without any way or means of doing it. If Dáil time is given to service issues (like it seems he may be suggesting), then there's a serious risk of politicising the service to its detriment.

6. BRING WOMEN INTO POLITICS
Cut public subsidies to political parties unless at least 30 per cent of their candidates are female.

Absolutely obnoxious, disgusting anti-democratic, sexist nonsense.

7. END IMPUNITY
Conduct an urgent review of company law to ensure that white collar criminals are brought to justice.

What's this mean?

8. GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS
Ban all significant private donations to political parties. Make parties publish annual accounts. Register and control lobbyists. Protect whistleblowers.

A bit idealistic. Parties still need money to operate.

9. RESTORE THE RIGHT TO KNOW
Bring back the original Freedom of Information Act.

Very idealistic. Imagine your workplace had every communication, memo, email available for all to see. It makes it difficult to operate an effective efficient business. Some reform is perhaps needed, but too much transparency is also a problem I believe.

10. NO MORE CRONYISM
Make all appointments to State and public bodies open to public competition and Dáil scrutiny. Ban any individual from being a director of more than three companies or public bodies

.

Utter rubbish once more.
Does he realise firstly that not all public body directors are paid? Many actually do give their time and experience to the common good. So these will be told to piss off too?

The concept of being a director on more than a couple of companies is half the point!! Large organisations want experienced directors who can bring in skills from outside industries and different fields.

There are already corporate governance practices related to being on the boards of direct competitors which satisfy the current needs. No need to go pissing all over private business further.

The Corinthian

Good critical response.

enda1 wrote: »

Very idealistic. Imagine your workplace had every communication, memo, email available for all to see. It makes it difficult to operate an effective efficient business. Some reform is perhaps needed, but too much transparency is also a problem I believe.

My understanding is that the original Freedom of Information Act resulted in journos bombarding public offices, looking for their research to be done by them, and this is one of the reasons for the changes. Now I can't comment as to whether this is true (it is just hearsay), but I've had enough experience with journos to know that the majority are lazy hacks, so I'd not be surprised if this were the case.

TBH, Fintan O'Toole and Kevin Myers are effectively two sides of the same coin.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Do people who support gender quotas not realise that if they were ever enforced everyone would see female politicians in a diminshed light.

The response to every political argument could be "yeah well you're only here because of quotas"

Can't believe any women other than the power mad would support them.

For similar reasoning to The Corinthian I won't be signing this, which is a shame because the other points make sense.

metrovelvet

Are the gender quotas for appointments or are they for candidacy?

dan_d

I'd reduce the 30percent a bit - to a lower percentage. But there's no doubt that more women are needed in politics. And so far nothing else has worked.It doesn't have to be a cast iron solution, it can be abolished as quickly as it could be brought in.

As for the "if we don't pay them loads of money we won't get the best" argument....sorry.I don't buy that.

I'm a woman.Btw.

metrovelvet

But if they increase the female gender quota they will save money because I have no doubt the female politicians will get paid less.

HarryPotter41

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Do people who support gender quotas not realise that if they were ever enforced everyone would see female politicians in a diminshed light.

The response to every political argument could be "yeah well you're only here because of quotas"

Can't believe any women other than the power mad would support them.

For similar reasoning to The Corinthian I won't be signing this, which is a shame because the other points make sense.

Virtually every political party has quota systems for its selection processes, candidates, etc now. The women candidates are running in elections, they are not getting the votes though.

Iorras55

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Do any women posters here oppose #6?

Maybe he could better have said that 30% of those a political party puts up for the electorate to select from, should be women but to say that the final reprentatives of a party should be over 30% of women or subsidies will not be paid seems a bit rich (if not a little corrupt). Let the electorate decide who is best to represent them at the end of the day be they male or female. After all the electorate is made up of 50:50 and I think, if they have any brains at all, they are capable of deciding who is best to represent their interests.

It is more important to educate the electorate to be able to think for themselves instead of the moronic "we always vote for ** party". Now, that's really stupid!

Tim Robbins

CnaG wrote: »

I don't want to derail this conversation too much, but #6 is coming under serious fire on this thread so I suppose someone has to do this.

(deep breath)

You say candidates should be selected on merit; let's be honest here, most candidates are not currently selected on merit. A lot of candidates are selected either because they've been the TD for their area for years and everyone knows them, or because they've been the councillor for their area for years, and most people know them, or because their family is in the business, and everyone in the cumann who selects the candidates knows them. How could a new 'discrimination' make it any worse?

Besides, no new candidate (no matter how good they are in their various other areas of expertise) really knows how politics works. It's only with experience that they can actually really merit their position, if they ever do.

You want rid of the hacks and gombeens who wrecked the country? You need a new pool of potential candidates. What pool of potential candidates is hardly tapped in Ireland?* Women. So long as the parties don't go all Berlusconi on us (always a risk), or just select women straight from the dynasties as usual, it should I'm sure be possible to find reasonable numbers of women who would make good, decent, thoughtful, knowledgeable and articulate candidates. Women do, after all, make up 50% of the population.

In short, #6 is not such a bad idea as the people here are making it out to be. Yeah, sure he could have phrased it to encompass a wider range of potential new candidates than just women, but I think he's trying to be controversial, hoping it will spark debate. There hasn't been much debate here so far, just the usual 'oh it's PC nonsense' dismissal. I'll be interested to see your responses.



*apart from politics boardsies

Seriously gender quotas are a joke. Why not have a gender quote in all creches that 30% of employees have to be men?

I could understand a quote to help a minority. For example, say x% of politicians had to have a physical disability.

But women are not a minority. They have 50% of the population. It's c'est la vie if they do not wish to enter politics. They hardly are facing barriers. If they were, why haven't had a male president for over 20 years now?

Seriously Fintan...

T runner

CnaG wrote: »

I don't want to derail this conversation too much, but #6 is coming under serious fire on this thread so I suppose someone has to do this.

(deep breath)

You say candidates should be selected on merit; let's be honest here, most candidates are not currently selected on merit. A lot of candidates are selected either because they've been the TD for their area for years and everyone knows them, or because they've been the councillor for their area for years, and most people know them, or because their family is in the business, and everyone in the cumann who selects the candidates knows them. How could a new 'discrimination' make it any worse?

Besides, no new candidate (no matter how good they are in their various other areas of expertise) really knows how politics works. It's only with experience that they can actually really merit their position, if they ever do.

You want rid of the hacks and gombeens who wrecked the country? You need a new pool of potential candidates. What pool of potential candidates is hardly tapped in Ireland?* Women. So long as the parties don't go all Berlusconi on us (always a risk), or just select women straight from the dynasties as usual, it should I'm sure be possible to find reasonable numbers of women who would make good, decent, thoughtful, knowledgeable and articulate candidates. Women do, after all, make up 50% of the population.

In short, #6 is not such a bad idea as the people here are making it out to be. Yeah, sure he could have phrased it to encompass a wider range of potential new candidates than just women, but I think he's trying to be controversial, hoping it will spark debate. There hasn't been much debate here so far, just the usual 'oh it's PC nonsense' dismissal. I'll be interested to see your responses.



*apart from politics boardsies

Exactly. There are many posters here who abhor the gombeens and parish pump politics that is wrecking our country when it suits but jump to their defense if it means that a few more women might be in the Dail.

They condemn gender quotas as "sexist" even though they dont actually have a clue how they actually work!!!

Labour, FG, and Greens look like they will use them so this obvious hypocritical position will leave this choice: Vote for a party who support gender quotas or Vote for FF.

Shoul dbe interesting!!

T runner

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Seriously gender quotas are a joke. Why not have a gender quote in all creches that 30% of employees have to be men?

I could understand a quote to help a minority. For example, say x% of politicians had to have a physical disability.

But women are not a minority. They have 50% of the population. It's c'est la vie if they do not wish to enter politics. They hardly are facing barriers. If they were, why haven't had a male president for over 20 years now?

Seriously Fintan...

If they werent facing barriers then why has there never been more than 14% in our Dail?

Looks like you will have the choice between a party who will have quotas in the next election or FF. Voting FF are you?:)

Good on FOT. Someone has to do something.

politicsdude

point 6 is ridiculous

RGDATA!

sdonn wrote: »

What's the betting FIntan's annual income exceeds €100,000?

I'm pretty sure he is on the record recently that his salary at the Irish Times is well shy of 100k.

I'm sure his book earnings and other "nixers" would mean he has a healthy income, but why not if he works hard for it? I don't always agree with the guy, but I don't think he is a hypocrite just because he earns more than the average punter. He's a smart guy and a good writer and deserves to be well paid for it.

The Corinthian

T runner wrote: »

Exactly. There are many posters here who abhor the gombeens and parish pump politics that is wrecking our country when it suits but jump to their defense if it means that a few more women might be in the Dail.

That would be one of those straw men that you are so fond of accusing others of.

They condemn gender quotas as "sexist" even though they dont actually have a clue how they actually work!!!

It is very difficult to impose a gender-based rule, be it a quota or otherwise, without it being sexist. I also would not assume that others are not aware of what such a system would entail.

Labour, FG, and Greens look like they will use them so this obvious hypocritical position will leave this choice: Vote for a party who support gender quotas or Vote for FF.

Depends how they're actually used. I would be interested in how many of such candidates end up being placed as second or third in constituencies that cannot support a second or third representative from that party, yet not affect the final result for those they want in - thus appearing to promote women candidates within interfering with electoral strategy.

Personally, if a party voluntarily adopts such a quota strategy, that is up to them as it is their right to make such ideological choices and for people to vote accordingly. Making it obligatory is another thing.

Now, this thread really is more on O'Toole's petition, are you going to hijack it now that your original thread on women's quotas got shut down?

T runner

The Corinthian wrote: »

That would be one of those straw men that you are so fond of accusing others of.

Lets try not get personal Corinthian.

It is very difficult to impose a gender-based rule, be it a quota or otherwise, without it being sexist. I also would not assume that others are not aware of what such a system would entail.

You do understand the difference between gender and sex?

If the quotas are met by the parties by removing barriers to democratic representaion then the quotas will not affect on the strenght of candidate they put forward. This will mean that our representative democracy is strenghtened which is why its on FOTs list.

If they dont remove barriers and discrimination still exists for one gender, the party will be punished and its candidates will be made more representative by the quota. Absolutley no sexism in the principle of the quota system, only discriminative barriers to equal representation which they seek to address.

Depends how they're actually used. I would be interested in how many of such candidates end up being placed as second or third in constituencies that cannot support a second or third representative from that party, yet not affect the final result for those they want in - thus appearing to promote women candidates within interfering with electoral strategy.

And that is why mandatory quotas are absolutely necessary in Ireland.

Personally, if a party voluntarily adopts such a quota strategy, that is up to them as it is their right to make such ideological choices and for people to vote accordingly. Making it obligatory is another thing.

I disagree. I believe in a representative democracy it is their obligation to produce representaive candidates. The problem is when all parties produce unrepresentaive candidates we consistently get an unrepresentational Dail.
It is up to the state to ensure our democracy is representative and strong. Mandatory quotas are not necessary in every country, they are in this one.

Now, this thread really is more on O'Toole's petition, are you going to hijack it now that your original thread on women's quotas got shut down?

I didnt expect you to get through the post without some degree of nastiness, i wasnt dissapointed.

Several posters including yourself have spoken against point 6 on this thread. Infact you described its inclusion as "Slipping crap like that" and declared that the majority of people have signed it despite point 6. How you could know that? Commente on FOTs hoempage indicate that people who sign the position do NOT have a problem with point 6. Are you making stuff up tp try and strenghen your argument? I think such a crass, ham-fisted attack on this noble idea (it has worked brilliantly in PR systems in simialar countries to our own) should be repelled.

I am quite intitled to speak for it and say that i agree with FOTs petition and have signed it agreeing with all points

Darsad

I didnt sign . I dont agree with point 6 it just PC crap and the best person should always get the job and why should any selection process be made easier for women.

Anyway not sure too many of the women in the current dail have helped or encouraged the electorate with their performance that we need a quota for women tds.
Mary Coughlan , Mary ORourke, Mary Harney , Mary White spring to mind
maybe its just something about mary

gizmo555

Darsad wrote: »

Anyway not sure too many of the women in the current dail have helped or encouraged the electorate with their performance that we need a quota for women tds.
Mary Coughlan , Mary ORourke, Mary Harney , Mary White spring to mind
maybe its just something about mary

Nah, not just Marys, there's that political giant (whom the Supreme Court found had no reputation deserving of legal protection) Beverley Flynn.

sparkling sea

Signed - but I dont't really think it will make that much difference to politics unless we as a nation change - you need to get rid of the cute whore mentality that is deeply ingrained in us - eg. No more lobbying TD's for houses or jumping of queues on hospital lists.

I am at the stage were I nearly think that people with degrees or higher - or experience in particular areas should be radomly selected for a panel government and serior civil servant positions. A panel for each ministry perhaps meaning if you are unfit for the job you can be easily replaced.

New people from the panel could be phased in perhaps so that you don't have complete change at the end of four years but you still have elections for the panel.

If you have held a prominent position on any type of union, etc you should be automatically ineligible. We need a new type of person to become our politicans.

I dont know but I just can't see anything changing although its nice that Fintan is doing something.

I am of couse especially in favour of point 6. our society could the benefit from both men and womens experiences which are needed in politics.

T runner

sparkling sea wrote: »

Signed - but I dont't really think it will make that much difference to politics unless we as a nation change - you need to get rid of the cute whore mentality that is deeply ingrained in us - eg. No more lobbying TD's for houses or jumping of queues on hospital lists.

Yes we need to change. Hopefully point 3 will provide the leadership and change to focus of TDs to legislation and Dail Eireann.

I am at the stage were I nearly think that people with degrees or higher - or experience in particular areas should be radomly selected for a panel government and serior civil servant positions. A panel for each ministry perhaps meaning if you are unfit for the job you can be easily replaced.

Im inclined to agree somewhat. I feel they should be proven in the field though. The firepower that Hank Paulson in the US was able to call on after Lahmanns collapse compared to what we had here for our crises is astounding. A list system could solve this but politicians might be unwilling to sacrifice complete political control over office like Finance.

I think your idea is good. Powerful immovable Senior civil servants are problematic.

New people from the panel could be phased in perhaps so that you don't have complete change at the end of four years but you still have elections for the panel.

Fair enough

If you have held a prominent position on any type of union, etc you should be automatically ineligible. We need a new type of person to become our politicans.

Exactly! A new type of person.

I am of couse especially in favour of point 6. our society could the benefit from both men and womens experiences which are needed in politics.

Me too, clearly if barriers are eliminated for more men and women entering politics we will have a stronger more representative democracy. Better liklihood for reform too. Unlike here point 1 seems to be the controversial one on the actual petition site. No objectors to point 6 there at all.

Darsad wrote: »

I didnt sign . I dont agree with point 6 it just PC crap and the best person should always get the job and why should any selection process be made easier for women.

Anyway not sure too many of the women in the current dail have helped or encouraged the electorate with their performance that we need a quota for women tds.
Mary Coughlan , Mary ORourke, Mary Harney , Mary White spring to mind
maybe its just something about mary

In fairness I dont think the guys making up 87% of the Dail have acquitted themselves well either. Remember the most male dominated party ......is FF.

gizmo555 wrote: »

Nah, not just Marys, there's that political giant (whom the Supreme Court found had no reputation deserving of legal protection) Beverley Flynn.

She's her fathers daughter and seems to be the exception rather than the rule as far as female corruption in the Dail. Is there any point in listing the very, very long list of male politicians implicated in corruption?