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

Annasopra

iptba wrote: »

A report largely written by Ivana Bacik as I recall.

Yes; Jobyrne30 said there has been no attempts to find out why women do not get involved. Ivana was a rapporteur for the committee and did the research.

Bullseye1

We are on a slippery slope.

iptba

parker kent wrote: »

So any move that increases the amount of highly educated, intelligent people seems like a positive move to me.

Who said it will do that? There may well be a use in that, but this proposal may, for example, simply mean more female relatives standing.

To take a specific example: if you have two pots of people e.g. in a local party, with say ten men in one pot and three women in the other, imposing a gender quota doesn't seem to guarantee anything about increasing the amount of highly educated, intelligent people. It could in fact mean a very good candidate who might otherwise have been picked, doesn't get picked simply because of his gender.

If the aim is to increase the amount of highly educated, intelligent people applying there are probably better ways of doing it.

MadsL

Johnnymcg wrote: »

What countries has that happened in?

Rwanda - 56.3 percent women representation

Others (just a few!! )

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Argentina
Armenia
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Costa Rica
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
Eritrea
France
Greece
Guyana
Honduras
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Italy
Jordan
Kenya
Korea, Republic of
Kyrgyzstan
Lesotho
Macedonia, former Yugoslav Republic (1993-)
Mauritania
Mexico
Namibia
Nepal
Niger
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Rwanda
Senegal
Serbia
Sierra Leone
Slovenia
Somalia
South Africa
Spain
Sudan
Tanzania, United Republic of
Uganda
Uruguay
Uzbekistan

parker kent

iptba wrote: »

Who said it will do that? There may well be a use in that, but this proposal may, for example, simply mean more female relatives standing.

It is logical that by increasing the talent pool, they increase the odds of getting greater numbers of intelligent people in the long-term. For many reasons we do not get many women in politics. We are missing out as there are obviously lots of talented women heading into other areas. Obviously the proposal has to be well executed to get the right people involved, but that should go without saying.

MadsL

iptba wrote: »

To take a specific example: if you have two pots of people e.g. in a local party, with say ten men in one pot and three women in the other, imposing a gender quota doesn't seem to guarantee anything about increasing the amount of highly educated, intelligent people. It could in fact mean a very good candidate who might otherwise have been picked, doesn't get picked simply because of his gender.

This might be bad legislation - if you have a prospective candidate quota (x of each gender say or 3 + 7 in a 30% quota system) then you can still select on merit but you need to ensure the available pool includes the quota of women. Then the appropriate candidate is selected much as you cannot discriminate in a job interview. This ensures gender access but not slavish quotas for quotas sake.

parker kent

MadsL wrote: »

This might be bad legislation - if you have a prospective candidate quota (x of each gender say or 3 + 7 in a 30% quota system) then you can still select on merit but you need to ensure the available pool includes the quota of women. Then the appropriate candidate is selected much as you cannot discriminate in a job interview. This ensures gender access but not slavish quotas for quotas sake.

This is a decent proposal. My view on this thread has just been from a "get more women into politics" viewpoint. The actual proposal itself is not necessarily what I'm agreeing with. But I do think there needs to be something done to increase female participation in politics. The effect would be largely the same as when greater numbers of women joined the workforce. We are missing out on a lot of talented women who would make useful politicians.

Annasopra

MadsL wrote: »

Rwanda - 56.3 percent women representation

Others (just a few!! )

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Argentina
Armenia
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Costa Rica
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
Eritrea
France
Greece
Guyana
Honduras
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Italy
Jordan
Kenya
Korea, Republic of
Kyrgyzstan
Lesotho
Macedonia, former Yugoslav Republic (1993-)
Mauritania
Mexico
Namibia
Nepal
Niger
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Rwanda
Senegal
Serbia
Sierra Leone
Slovenia
Somalia
South Africa
Spain
Sudan
Tanzania, United Republic of
Uganda
Uruguay
Uzbekistan

I was asking exe.pat really which of these countries have been dominated by radical genderists as per his statement

iptba

MadsL wrote: »

This might be bad legislation - if you have a prospective candidate quota (x of each gender say or 3 + 7 in a 30% quota system) then you can still select on merit but you need to ensure the available pool includes the quota of women. Then the appropriate candidate is selected much as you cannot discriminate in a job interview. This ensures gender access but not slavish quotas for quotas sake.

There's selection going on at the prospective candidate stage - to ensure you get your 3 women you may throw out good men purely based on their gender to reach your quota.

MadsL

There's selection going on at the prospective candidate stage - to ensure you get your 3 women you may throw out good men to reach your quota.

To be honest, I don't really think this is the problem. I have have known a couple of professional, capable, intelligent women who were probably prepared to seek selection if asked. The problem is they are not asked, and they do not go forward because they know that so-and-so's brother is standing (for example) - he's a 'safe' cabdidate so not a hope in hell of getting the selection. The party needs these new blood candidates (tbh regardless of gender) but they see they haven't a hope to get selected.

Stheno

parker kent wrote: »

This is a decent proposal. My view on this thread has just been from a "get more women into politics" viewpoint. The actual proposal itself is not necessarily what I'm agreeing with. But I do think there needs to be something done to increase female participation in politics. The effect would be largely the same as when greater numbers of women joined the workforce. We are missing out on a lot of talented women who would make useful politicians.

Why though? Why aren't they standing without quotas?

iptba wrote: »

There's selection going on at the prospective candidate stage - to ensure you get your 3 women you may throw out good men purely based on their gender to reach your quota.

That would be my view too.

MadsL wrote: »

To be honest, I don't really think this is the problem. I have have known a couple of professional, capable, intelligent women who were probably prepared to seek selection if asked. The problem is they are not asked, and they do not go forward because they know that so-and-so's brother is standing (for example) - he's a 'safe' cabdidate so not a hope in hell of getting the selection. The party needs these new blood candidates (tbh regardless of gender) but they see they haven't a hope to get selected.

Were they involved in politics, the women of whom you speak? If so then you raise a fair point. I just see this as a slide into mainstream quotas, e.g. I work in IT and have always worked in a very male dominated area, but have never found it to stop me progressing.

iptba

MadsL wrote: »

iptba wrote:

There's selection going on at the prospective candidate stage - to ensure you get your 3 women you may throw out good men to reach your quota.

To be honest, I don't really think this is the problem. <snip>

Many people do see people losing out solely because of their gender as a problem. Indeed, I thought that was supposed the big selling point of feminism.

Stheno

iptba wrote: »

Many people do see people losing out solely because of their gender as a problem. Indeed, I thought that was supposed the big selling point of feminism.

not to mention our equality laws.

MadsL

people losing out solely because of their gender as a problem

Let me turn it round then, do women have a right to be equally represented? Are they not 'losing out'?

Stheno

MadsL wrote: »

Let me turn it round then, do women have a right to be equally represented? Are they not 'losing out'?

Don't women as pretty much 50% of the electorate vote for their representatives? And therefore who represents them.

On a wider note, I'm female and was very very heavily involved in politics when I was in college, it was my primary extra curricular activity, I loved it, enjoyed it so much it was great fun, be it canvassing, debating, meeting politicians, trips to the dail, whatever.

however I led a very nomadic life after college and never settled anywhere to get involved despite living in one town for nine years, as work meant I was often travelling.

The failure there imo is the inability of the political parties to take that student/college level interest, and in college it was about 60/40 male, and follow through on it, strangely enough I've only seen one of my fellow college politicos (and I was in UCD) go anywhere.

On another note, is there an element here, that women in general don't have an interest in politics and/or are influenced by family trends and so don't make independant choices? Myself the the bf disagreed fundamentally on the candidates in our constituency in the GE, but I made my choice, and he made his. That won't necessarily apply to all women who may choose to follow a partner/family preference rather than independantly making up their minds?

parker kent

Stheno wrote: »

Why though? Why aren't they standing without quotas?

I'd blame the long standing social norms in Irish politics. I've read some women in political parties claim that they just are not considered for running or that they are outside the inner circles where decisions are made.

Stheno

parker kent wrote: »

I'd blame the long standing social norms in Irish politics. I've read some women in political parties claim that they just are not considered for running or that they are outside the inner circles where decisions are made.

Fair enough point, but think of college politics, now this is just based on my experience but plenty of women are involved and run, so what happens after college?

Is it a wider issue that after leaving college women find a greater domestic burden on them that precludes getting involved to a sufficient degree in college?

Note this doesn't apply to me, I chose a career where I am constantly upskilling which takes a lot of my time (then very few politicians come from IT regardless of gender ) and I travel a lot.

parker kent

Stheno wrote: »

Fair enough point, but think of college politics, now this is just based on my experience but plenty of women are involved and run, so what happens after college?

Is it a wider issue that after leaving college women find a greater domestic burden on them that precludes getting involved to a sufficient degree in college?

Well they join parties dominated by older men. In college that is obviously not an issue. The domestic burden is an issue for some of course. But I'd link that to our social issues in general as well. If it became normal for a lot of women to be in politics, that would change as well.

Stheno

parker kent wrote: »

Well they join parties dominated by older men. In college that is obviously not an issue. The domestic burden is an issue for some of course. But I'd link that to our social issues in general as well. If it became normal for a lot of women to be in politics, that would change as well.

True, but how are parties now going to find the 30% of women they need?

You need to get entrenched at a local level to move forward and given recent stats, women just are not involved. I for example would never get involved in local politics as I don't have the time or availability due to travel/work commitments to do so (not saying I am an ideal candidate) but given that I cannot pursue fixed time hobbies, or even attend events related to my profession due to work commitments, I could never be involved in politics at a local level.

In college btw I was very involved with the main party itself, hence trips to the Dail and canvassing.

CDfm

Politics in Ireland are local and political parties would not offer to do what they are doing anyway.

Constituency parties etc are normally local family affairs and the same names turn up in party tickets.

Enda Kenny himself inherited his seat from his Dad -so are we going to have a Kenny daughter inherit from him.

Brendan Howlins Dad was a party & union activist in Wexford.

Haughey, Colley & Fitzgerald were all students of UCD at the same time.

And this us going to help democracy with political parties operating under a whip system.

So is it fair to assume that our politicians are just dressing up what they are doing already.

They are politians ffs - we should be a bit more cynical of their motives.

Check this out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Families_in_the_Oireachtas

parker kent

Stheno wrote: »

True, but how are parties now going to find the 30% of women they need?

You need to get entrenched at a local level to move forward and given recent stats, women just are not involved. I for example would never get involved in local politics as I don't have the time or availability due to travel/work commitments to do so (not saying I am an ideal candidate) but given that I cannot pursue fixed time hobbies, or even attend events related to my profession due to work commitments, I could never be involved in politics at a local level.

In college btw I was very involved with the main party itself, hence trips to the Dail and canvassing.

I'd prefer if they had early intervention schemes and did it slowly over time. Switching to 30% over night is liable to cause the usual nepotism and ill-suited candidates. I think using the college political parties is the way forward. As you say, the interest is there. So getting to them early is the way forward.

Stheno

parker kent wrote: »

I'd prefer if they had early intervention schemes and did it slowly over time. Switching to 30% over night is liable to cause the usual nepotism and ill-suited candidates. I think using the college political parties is the way forward. As you say, the interest is there. So getting to them early is the way forward.

Agree 100+ the parties need to capitalise on that interest, it's a shame they don't. Nurturing keen potential candidates of either gender at that level will result in a broader field, especially of women, given that they participate in higher numbers in politics whilst at college imo.

Mr McBoatface

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Yes; Jobyrne30 said there has been no attempts to find out why women do not get involved. Ivana was a rapporteur for the committee and did the research.

Research, vested interest lobbing or just lip service? Any report that recommends discrimination as a solution isn't worth the paper it's written on.

I'm sure other quota's can be added to subvert the democratic will of the people and will make our discredited political system look even worse. Is all that is needed a report written by a failed political entity with a vested interest to get the green light?

I know some fat people who think the number obese TD's is not representative of the population and want that changed. I'm sure a representative of McDonnell's could lobby some open minded and impartial committee member to create some well researched reports outlining the benefit of having more obese politicians.

CDfm

To get elected you need a local party and support - being a candidate does not mean getting elected. Ask Ivana Bacik. :pac:

If government was about ability we would have had Michael Smurfit, Tony O'Reilly and Michael O'Leary courted by politicians and used as advisors. Bill Cullen would be on the Board of FAS.

Stheno

jobyrne30 wrote: »

Research, vested interest lobbing or just lip service? Any report that recommends discrimination as a solution isn't worth the paper it's written on.

I'm sure other quota's can be added to subvert the democratic will of the people and will make our discredited political system look even worse. Is all that is needed a report written by a failed political entity with a vested interest to get the green light?

I know some fat people who think the number obese TD's is not representative of the population and want that changed. I'm sure a representative of McDonnell's could lobby some open minded and impartial committee member to create some well researched reports outlining the benefit of having more obese politicians.

Obesity is not grounds for inequality legislation in this country, gender is.

CDfm

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Yes; Jobyrne30 said there has been no attempts to find out why women do not get involved. Ivana was a rapporteur for the committee and did the research.

But does that not assume that the Oireachtas is the law making body when in fact TD's are often little more than constituency errand boys.

What John Bruton -ex Taoiseach and potential shoe in for President says is

Former taoiseach John Bruton claimed today that the Republic is run by civil servants who use TDs and senators to administer their rule.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0106/breaking44.html

How does government work.

Civil Servants deal with lobby groups and interest groups etc and have their own agenda's. They feed their client demands to the politicians as initiatives.

Sucessful lobby groups call the tune.

So women may well be involved and active thru the lobby and interest group system. I think thats the case.

If you are going to argue representation control lobby groups and their contact with government departments.

Look at how the new government is playing out as not too much different then the last one.

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

But does that not assume that the Oireachtas is the law making body when in fact TD's are often little more than constituency errand boys.

What John Bruton -ex Taoiseach and potential shoe in for President says is


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0106/breaking44.html

How does government work.

Civil Servants deal with lobby groups and interest groups etc and have their own agenda's. They feed their client demands to the politicians as initiatives.

Sucessful lobby groups call the tune.

So women may well be involved and active thru the lobby and interest group system. I think thats the case.

If you are going to argue representation control lobby groups and their contact with government departments.

Yes, if one wants some sort of gender balance in politics, one could ensure than women's groups can only have a percentage more access than men's groups, for example.

And perhaps also look whether there is an imbalance in how State money is given out to groups to see if that is imbalanced and/or creating imbalances.

I don't expect they will do either of course. But I think those imbalances that do exist in favour of women's groups mean having gender quotas/discrimination isn't necessary - if one wants to look for marginalised groups, one might want to look further than simply gender and see whether quotas in other areas are more justified. Not that I'm a big fan of quotas but the argument for having them for gender rather than any other area isn't clear.

CDfm

iptba wrote: »

Yes, if one wants some sort of gender balance in politics, one could ensure than women's groups can only have a percentage more access than men's groups, for example.

democracy is based on arbitrary rules anyway and parties vote manage.

And perhaps also look whether there is an imbalance in how State money is given out to groups to see if that is imbalanced and/or creating imbalances.

Thats hardly the point of what Bruton said which was the Oireachtas and its members have little power and policy is set by Civil Servants and politicians are the least powerful in the situation of interest groups, civil servants and elected politicians.

I don't expect they will do either of course. But I think those imbalances that do exist in favour of women's groups mean having gender quotas/discrimination isn't necessary - if one wants to look for marginalised groups, one might want to look further than simply gender and see whether quotas in other areas are more justified. Not that I'm a big fan of quotas but the argument for having them for gender rather than any other area isn't clear.

I am not a fan either but it does very much look like a vote management and electoral finance management policy than a womens representation policy.Its about changing the rules to win elections.

Maybe it is unconstitutional , but it seems very hairy to me for other reasons and is hardly tackling key issues identified by FG when not in power.

Condatis

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.

How is it a problem? The system works because people who want to put themselves forward for selection do so. Women do not put themselves forward in the same numbers as men do.

The proposal is a nonsense and actually anti-democratic.

amacachi

Stheno wrote: »

On another note, is there an element here, that women in general don't have an interest in politics and/or are influenced by family trends and so don't make independant choices? Myself the the bf disagreed fundamentally on the candidates in our constituency in the GE, but I made my choice, and he made his. That won't necessarily apply to all women who may choose to follow a partner/family preference rather than independantly making up their minds?

I would agree somewhat with the lack of interest in politics, or at least the type of interest. Obviously there's not going to be a study funded by someone against quotas to support such a viewpoint. :pac:

Another funny thing is that certainly Labour, and I've heard murmurings about other parties, seem to jump at a chance at a woman candidate when they can, so opportunities, as far as I can tell aren't limited, despite that being what this is meant to be opening up.