30% of political candidates must be female....

myflipflops

Under legislation proposed by the Minister of the Environment, parties will lose 50% of their funding unless 30% of candidates are female.

This is political correctness at it's most dangerous. We have enough disgracefully underqualified TD's as it is without forcing parties to run people based on gender.

If this legislation guaranteed that a significant number of capable women would now enter politics and run for election then it is fine and i would agree with it but that will not happen. We will simply have formerly low level party members shunted to the front in the next election. I believe Ireland would benefit greatly from a strong initiative aimed at getting more women involved in politics at a high level but a set quota is a disastrous proposal.

Lucinda Creighton summed up the idea of gender quotas in politics perfectly when she described it as an 'east solution to a very complex problem'.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0528/1224297952047.html

MARY MINIHAN

POLITICAL PARTIES will have to implement a 30 per cent gender quota for general election candidates, or else face severe financial penalties, under planned new legislation.


State funding for parties will be cut by half unless at least 30 per cent of the candidates they put forward are women, Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan has said.

Mr Hogan will shortly ask Cabinet to sign off on proposed legislation under which parties will face a 50 per cent reduction in funds if they do not hit the gender target.

“It’s a groundbreaking political opportunity for the country in terms of increasing particularly the participation rate of women in Irish politics. This is the carrot and the big stick approach. If you don’t deliver you’ll get your funding cut, and it’s quite a serious penalty to be in breach of this particular proposal,” he said.

Mr Hogan said the threat to cut funding was the only way to “concentrate the mind” of political parties. The measure will be attached to promised legislation banning corporate donations, likely to be published before the Dáil’s summer recess.

Asked if he was anticipating any negative reaction to the proposal, Mr Hogan said he was not. He claimed Fine Gael efforts to ensure greater participation by women candidates in the 2009 local elections “brought us greater results from the electorate”. He said: “So there’s a vested interest on behalf of the political system to ensure there’s a greater balance of gender in terms of participation in Irish politics.”

The proposal has been discussed a number of times at Cabinet meetings, during which the Coalition’s senior women Ministers, Joan Burton of Labour and Frances Fitzgerald of Fine Gael, were vocal on the issue.

Mr Hogan acknowledged their input while stressing he had initiated the measure. “I brought forward the proposal and obviously women, particularly Minister Burton and Minister Fitzgerald, would be very strongly supportive of it.” He also said Cabinet was “very supportive”.

He said the proposed legislation would apply at national level “initially”. As State funding of political parties was based on the vote received in the previous national election, it might be difficult to implement at local level, he said.

“But I think that there will be a huge pressure on political parties to replicate this at local level once it’s implemented at national level.”

In 2009, Senator Ivana Bacik produced a report recommending parties should face financial penalties unless a third of their general election candidates were women.

Exchequer funding for 2010 was more than €13,480,000. Fianna Fáil received €5,200,780; Fine Gael €4,484,378; Labour €2,163,293; the Greens €801,999 and Sinn Féin €830,298.

The Dáil has 166 seats, 25 of which are occupied by women. In February’s general election, some 15 per cent of the 566 candidates were women. More than 16 per cent of Fine Gael’s candidates were women, with 25 per cent from Labour; 14.6 per cent from Fianna Fáil and 19.5 per cent from Sinn Féin.

For Independents and others, including the United Left Alliance, women represented 10.6 per cent of candidates. The Green Party’s figure was 18.6 per cent.

The programme for government said public funding for political parties would be tied to the level of participation by women as candidates those parties achieve, but did not set targets or detail penalties.

Mr Hogan noted Taoiseach Enda Kenny, in opposition, had attempted to implement quotas of women candidates in Fine Gael, “with mixed results”. Lucinda Creighton and several other Fine Gael women opposed the measure, with Ms Creighton describing it as an “easy solution to a very complex problem

Count Duckula

Given that at least 30% of the male candidates are utterly unsuitable anyway, I don't see how this could possibly make things any worse.

desertcircus

This is only a problem if you think there are less than half as many competent women as competent men involved in political parties.

The fact that we're looking at legislation to increase the numbers of female TDs to 30% is an indictment of the abysmal record of the current setup, not the ramifications of the new one.

Mr McBoatface

Positive discrimination doesn't fix the problem. They need to find out what the route cause of the problem is and address that with reform.

All this proposal does is weaken the position of women in politics and weakens an already poor political system. If this is brought in women in politics will be viewed by many as being involved in politics not because they where the right or best person for the job but because some fudged up legal requirement has placed them there without any regard for merit.

deirdre_dub

jobyrne30 wrote: »

Positive discrimination doesn't fix the problem. They need to find out what the route cause of the problem is and address that with reform.

That's what everyone has been saying for decades now. So - how many more decades do you think should be allowed for this process to complete itself?

All this proposal does is weaken the position of women in politics and weakens an already poor political system. If this is brought in women in politics will be viewed by many as being involved in politics not because they where the right or best person for the job but because some fudged up legal requirement has placed them there without any regard for merit.

I don't doubt that some parties, when choosing their female candidates, will deliberately choose ones without merit in order to weaken the position of women in politics.

Agent Smith

Total Bullshit tbh


The best people should be selected, regardless of whats between their legs.

Solair

Well, I'm a bloke and I agree with this move. Women are at no disadvantage when they are on the ticket and I do not think that the electorate are in any way sexist, but there is something seriously wrong with the parties' candidate selection process which seems to produce a boring panel of middle aged men.

I would hope that things might shake up generally and more people from different background get on the ticket. We see exactly what a bunch of middle aged, middle class, similarly experienced men brought us : group think, corruption and lack of new ideas.

Anything that brings new blood into the system is positive, in my opinion.

alex73

Load of Bollox, I'm going to vote for a TD because they are capable, not because they are a Man or a Woman.

dlofnep

What will they do to combat the lack of independent female candidates? Lame idea.

Count Duckula

Agent Smith wrote: »

Total Bullshit tbh


The best people should be selected, regardless of whats between their legs.

But they're clearly not being, are they? Unless you're seriously suggesting that the "best people" are male 84% of the time.

Mr McBoatface

deirdre_dub wrote: »

That's what everyone has been saying for decades now. So - how many more decades do you think should be allowed for this process to complete itself?

What process are you referring to exactly ? As far as I can see there has been lip service and no real effort to find out why women are not involved in politics to the extent males are. If you find the route cause then you can fix the issue with a real solutions.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I don't doubt that some parties, when choosing their female candidates, will deliberately choose ones without merit in order to weaken the position of women in politics.

I was thinking more from the public perspective ... the public want the best person for the job not the best female.

SugarHigh

Isn't this saying that women can't compete on equal terms so require an advantage. I don't see why it's fair to judge people on their gender but it only seems ok if it goes in the favour of women.

Women are already equally represented in politics by making up 50% of the electorate. There are no unemployed TD's but that doesn't mean unemployed people are not being represented. Do people not understand democracy?

Mr McBoatface

Count Duckula wrote: »

But they're clearly not being, are they? Unless you're seriously suggesting that the "best people" are male 84% of the time.

Your confusing issues there..... How to attract the best people to politics and how to end political corruption is not a gender specific issue.

SugarHigh

jobyrne30 wrote: »

Your confusing issues there..... How to attract the best people to politics and how to end political corruption is not a gender specific issue.

I agree. I don't see why gender gets the importance it does. Anyone who votes based on gender is a moron. Voting for someone because they're a woman is just as dumb as not voting for them because they're a woman. Yet only one of these is socially acceptable.

stupidusername

I think it's a good thing to draw attention to the lack of females in politics, but this is a bad way to go about it. it's like if someone's being excluded from a game in the playground, teacher comes along and say 'awh come on guys, be nice, play with X, she's being left out'. it's likely to be a waste of time. Do they think that there are lots of women wishing they could get into politics, but are somehow feeling intimidated? Maybe it's different when you're actually in that world, I don't know as i'm not involved in politics at all.

Maybe with this enforced it will encourage more women in, and yes this could be a good thing, but I still think it's a ridiculous way to go about it. What's next, are they going to stop women getting into other areas of work until 'enough' women have gone into politics?

Dravokivich

I honestly think politics is not a place that should have gender quotas. Ideally a politician is there to represent the people. Regardless of the gender of the people or the politician.

Logical Fallacy

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I don't doubt that some parties, when choosing their female candidates, will deliberately choose ones without merit in order to weaken the position of women in politics.

No offense, but that is some serious tinfoil hat stylings right there.

Wolfe Tone

Parties should be allowed to run who they want.


Stupid fascist idea.

IvySlayer

It's a stupid, sexist and undemocratic thing to introduce. I will not be forced to vote for women, neither should anyone else.

Having conditions which encourages more women to stand for election = Good

Forcing people to vote for someone purely on the basis they have a vagina = Bad.

If this goes ahead, I fully expect policies and laws requiring that at least 30% of childminders, primary school teachers and any other area where male number are low, to be male. Only fair isn't it.

iptba

stupidusername wrote: »

What's next, are they going to stop women getting into other areas of work until 'enough' women have gone into politics?

There's quite a bit of talk around Europe, incl. within EU structures for gender quotas on boards of companies.

Mrmoe

Is there some reason that we need more women in politics, are they any better because they have a vagina? Gender quotas might be appropriate in some professions but politics is one that we most certainly do not need one. I have yet to hear a valid argument about why women make better politicians. The only change I would make would be to make the system more open so that anybody can get into political office regardless of gender.

Galvasean

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I don't doubt that some parties, when choosing their female candidates, will deliberately choose ones without merit in order to weaken the position of women in politics.

Do you honestly think political parties would shoot themselves in the foot by intentionaly selecting bad candidates just to spite women?
As implied by another poster already, that is some serious conspiracy theory BS right there.

MadsL

Generally speaking I'd support this. However, I'd also love to see a 'dynasty' quota - parties should lose x% of funding for every nepotistic candidate they put up. The concept of inheriting a TD or Council seat is so wrong in a republic.

Dravokivich

MadsL wrote: »

Generally speaking I'd support this. However, I'd also love to see a 'dynasty' quota - parties should lose x% of funding for every nepotistic candidate they put up. The concept of inheriting a TD or Council seat is so wrong in a republic.

As is a carpenters son/daughter becoming a carpenter...

amacachi

Solair wrote: »

Well, I'm a bloke and I agree with this move. Women are at no disadvantage when they are on the ticket and I do not think that the electorate are in any way sexist, but there is something seriously wrong with the parties' candidate selection process which seems to produce a boring panel of middle aged men.

That sounds grand but the ratio of women:men who stand as independents is lower than those who stand for parties, suggesting that the parties are already doing well at encouraging women to stand. As you said, the electorate have no problem with voting for women so the problem seems to lie elsewhere.

partyatmygaff

MadsL wrote: »

Generally speaking I'd support this. However, I'd also love to see a 'dynasty' quota - parties should lose x% of funding for every nepotistic candidate they put up. The concept of inheriting a TD or Council seat is so wrong in a republic.

Why should it be?

They don't "inherit" the seat from anyone. One family member is voted out and another is voted in by the electorate. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. It's not as if a Dáil seat is inheritable.

MadsL

At one point in 2009 we had 33% of the current cabinet (Cowen, Coughlan, Lenihan, Ó Cuív, Hanafin) Taoiseach, Tanaiste, and Minister for Finance
Leader of the Opposition, as either children or grandchildren of TDs.


Does that seem appropriate to you?

As is a carpenters son/daughter becoming a carpenter...

You no longer have to be selected by the guild to become a carpenter, unlike becoming a TD.

partyatmygaff

MadsL wrote: »

At one point in 2009 we had 33% of the current cabinet (Cowen, Coughlan, Lenihan, Ó Cuív, Hanafin) Taoiseach, Tanaiste, and Minister for Finance
Leader of the Opposition, as either children or grandchildren of TDs.


Does that seem appropriate to you?

Why wouldn't it? They didn't inherit their seats from their parents, the electorate voted them in in the same way that they voted in their parents. It's not up for me to say whether or not their choices were appropriate.

What do you propose we do? Ban the next two generations of any current T.D's family from holding public office?

MadsL

The electorate voted for whoever was put up as candidates. It's a hell of a lot easier to be put up by a party if your da was a Lenihan or Coughlan or whatever.

What do you propose we do? Ban the next two generations of any current T.D's family from holding public office?

It would be a hell of stand against the kind of useless muppets who have left us with two generations of debt.


..and we shouldn't do this because.....??

partyatmygaff

MadsL wrote: »

..and we shouldn't do this because.....??

You honestly see nothing wrong with barring the next two generations of current TD's families from holding public office?

"I want to run for T.D."
"Too bad, your grandfather served a term forty years ago."

That doesn't sound very fair, does it?

MadsL

next two generations of current TD's families from holding public office?

Until we get some transparency, accountability and integrity in political life in this country, then yes, maybe.

What I was actually proposing was penalising political parties. Democratically, I guess you have to let the 'heirs to the estate' run. But maybe as independants without party funds.

Nepotism is rife in Irish political life (Did Barry Cowen's election not leave a nasy taste in your mouth?) something has to be done to stamp it out.