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

common sense brigade

personally at the last elections there were plenty of women on the polling cards . i dont see the issue. You vote for the person you believe is the most capable for the job. i gave all my votes to men. I didnt see one woman worth a vote really in my area. Only people making a differnece were I live are men even though we have a few pompous overweight women doing the rounds.

28064212

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Perhaps not, but it'd be a step in the right direction.

Again, how? The solution to an elitist, insular, male-dominated system is not to bring in women to "even up the score", you just end up with an elitist, insular system which women are a part of.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

May I suggest is that these things aren't in spite of the fact that most of the rulers are male, but are instead because of the fact that most of the rulers are male. The way I believe it works is quite simple - most men love women. Most men love women in a way that they don't love other men. When certain issues (notably healthcare and certain social issues) are brought to a table of men, those men are going to have their sense of love for women triggered by those issues, and are going to act.

But again, these things are not gender-specific. You're talking about gender-specific solutions to problems which are not gender-specific. If there's a problem with healthcare policies, you elect the candidate who espouses a different system. You do not say "oh women act this way, we'll make sure to get a woman in", you say "hey, let's elect this candidate with really great healthcare policies".

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I certainly don't think that a gender-unequal government in the other direction would be a better one. We need both - we need all voices. That is the foundation of the ideals of democracy.

We don't "need" both. We need good politicians, ones with good policies, regardless of their gender. I'd much prefer a male- or female-dominated system that actually works over one which has a 50/50 gender divide and is corrupt, just as I'd much prefer a woman who shared my ideals to represent me over a man doesn't

Pepe LeFrits

28064212 wrote: »

Again, how? The solution to an elitist, insular, male-dominated system is not to bring in women to "even up the score", you just end up with an elitist, insular system which women are a part of.

It may not solve the problem entirely but broadening the range of people in a group makes it more inclusive.

I don't really like the way it would do it, but at this point I'm more interested in the end than the means. Of course the goal should be to have the most capable people we can in politics, and a quota could mean that we'd have unsuitable women being nominated... but the 86:14 split I've seen mentioned demonstrates that we don't have the best people in politics now anyway. This may well help induce a cultural shift in our politics that will have long term benefits. Though as parker & liah have already said, it has to be a temporary measure.

Galvasean

I really don't see any way how making a certain amount of positions compulsory for women will help. Do we need more Mary Harneys or Mary Coughlans? because if we do introduce a quota that's exactly what we will get. We wont get an abundance of competent women changing the face of Irish politics. We certainly will get daughters/nieces etc. of our current (useless) politicians getting seats that could have gone to someone else.
Even if and when a few good female politicians get in female politicians' reputation will be severely tarnished. People will dismiss them. "Ah sure she only got the job because of a quota. Why should we listen to her?"
Good female politicians who want to change the things need to work their way up, not depend on a technicality or handout.

28064212

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

I don't really like the way it would do it, but at this point I'm more interested in the end than the means. Of course the goal should be to have the most capable people we can in politics, and a quota could mean that we'd have unsuitable women being nominated...

Exactly. And that could be at the expense of suitable men. So the system gets even more embedded in the current psyche, but now they can claim that it's "equal"

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

but the 86:14 split I've seen mentioned demonstrates that we don't have the best people in politics now anyway.

See, this is the part where the quota argument falls down massively. The split demonstrates no such thing. The split could be 100:0, 0:100 or 50:50, and it doesn't say anything about whether the best people are there.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

This may well help induce a cultural shift in our politics that will have long term benefits.

It might. Or it could make it worse. Or stay the same. If it works, it will be because, coincidentally, the people it helped were better than the people it hurt. If it makes it worse, it will be because, coincidentally, the people it helped were worse than the people it hurt.

A quota doesn't do anything to address the problem

Maguined

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

It may not solve the problem entirely but broadening the range of people in a group makes it more inclusive.

I don't really like the way it would do it, but at this point I'm more interested in the end than the means. Of course the goal should be to have the most capable people we can in politics, and a quota could mean that we'd have unsuitable women being nominated... but the 86:14 split I've seen mentioned demonstrates that we don't have the best people in politics now anyway. This may well help induce a cultural shift in our politics that will have long term benefits. Though as parker & liah have already said, it has to be a temporary measure.

What has inclusiveness got to do with the best candidate? I work in a bank, if we hired some former boxers, dog walkers, actors and chef's our workplace would be more inclusive, it does not mean any of them would be any better at the job than someone with more qualifications and experience relevant to the job.

Yes but what culture shift is it introducing in politics? that what you have in your pants can be more valuable than what your policies are?

The_Conductor

Deirdre- you do make some very valid points- yes, more men die from testicular cancer than women do from breast cancer- yet the entire focus of the cancer societies seems to be geared towards breast cancer (the biggest cancer of all- is of course lung cancer). Have a read over some of the outrage expressed here on boards by some women at Movember- when men wouldn't shave for a month in aid of mens cancer research- it bordered on hysteria....... Apparently in the eyes of some women- its entirely acceptable to devote consider time effort and resources to bring their chosen charity to the fore- but god help anyone who does anything that they think might detract from this....... As someone affected by cancer (my Mum currently has lung cancer, and my wife has had oesaphageal cancer)- I actually get quite infuriated by the breast cancer brigade- and particularly by the Marie Keating Foundation- who claim to be an all-inclusive one-stop shop for both mens and women's cancer (while simultaneously trying to spoil daffodil day for the Irish cancer society- lest it detract from their raison d'etre).

Women are remarkable at bringing women's issues to the fore and attracting resources of all times towards their chosen fields- however the underhand methods used to detract from other charities and groups in order to further their aims are very often seriously circumspect.

Breast cancer is an issue- and it is being dealt with- with remarkable success. The shrill manner in which its in the media on a constant basis- has many women believing its a major killer, a woman's issue- and massively neglected- when none of these are in fact true.

By generating some sort of exclusivity for women with any topic- such as the examples with prisons in the UK- in my opinion the marginalisation of even other womens issues becomes inevitable. The biggest killer of women in Ireland- is heart disease. The women's health brigade are strangely mute about it- because they cheerfully consider it to be a men's issue (it does tend to affect men about 10 years earlier than women, and with very different sympthoms).......

The herd mentality- particularly revolving around breast cancer- is very troubling- and dangerous- allowing a platform to develop (such as treating men and women prisoners in a different manner)- inevitably results in these gross distortions.

With regard to Irish politics and Irish politicians in general- I honestly think that the perception is that they don't represent anyone other than themselves (and will do anything possibly to continue to get voted in). Our constituency system- is deeply flawed, and has done ongoing harm to us. Abolishing the Seanad as a political measure, pales into insignificance to the changes we need to make to our voting system.......

Pepe LeFrits

28064212 wrote: »

Exactly. And that could be at the expense of suitable men. So the system gets even more embedded in the current psyche, but now they can claim that it's "equal"

I don't claim it to be equal but the current system isn't equal either, a system which instead has unsuitable men running at the expense of women -

See, this is the part where the quota argument falls down massively. The split demonstrates no such thing. The split could be 100:0, 0:100 or 50:50, and it doesn't say anything about whether the best people are there.

It may not be a 50:50 split but I don't for a second believe that women only account for 14% of the best people in this country.

It might. Or it could make it worse. Or stay the same. If it works, it will be because, coincidentally, the people it helped were better than the people it hurt. If it makes it worse, it will be because, coincidentally, the people it helped were worse than the people it hurt.

A quota doesn't do anything to address the problem

Well again, I disagree that it'd be a coincidence, as our current group of politicians tends to be drawn from a narrow band of society that doesn't produce as many talented people as much as are put on the polling cards.

Maguined wrote: »

Yes but what culture shift is it introducing in politics? that what you have in your pants can be more valuable than what your policies are?

No, that's already there. The goal is to reduce the gender discrimination, which currently, perhaps unintentionally occurs, to enable future generations of women to seek office.

iptba

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Quick question for the men here.

Have you ever noticed that, even though more people die from testicular cancer than breast cancer, the latter is the one that gets all the attention? Have you ever noticed that, for all the (righteous) complaints made by feminism about many aspects of women in society, and in spite of the fact that most of our rulers are male, women still really aren't doing too bad in society overall, and there are ways (eg suicide, homelessness) where men are doing really badly? How does that work?!

I think this is true. Just because the percentage of male politicians is higher doesn't mean that men have all the advantages, get treated better across the board, etc.

BTW, I believe you meant prostate cancer, not testicular cancer, that kills more than men.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

May I suggest is that these things aren't in spite of the fact that most of the rulers are male, but are instead because of the fact that most of the rulers are male. The way I believe it works is quite simple - most men love women. Most men love women in a way that they don't love other men. When certain issues (notably healthcare and certain social issues) are brought to a table of men, those men are going to have their sense of love for women triggered by those issues, and are going to act.

Guess what? In spite of the impressions certain factions of feminism may have given you, most women love men. It is actually my fervent hope that a more gender-equal government would benefit men more than women. And I say that, in part, as someone who lost my youngest brother - someone I loved very much - to suicide. I also say it as someone who believes that men are, in general, awesome, and, in general, under-appreciated in society in some important ways. It is my hope that more women in government would redress that.

Also, in general, whereas men's socialisaiton tends towards being competitive, women's socialisation tends towards being co-operative. And I believe a government with more people in it whose socialisation has tended towards the co-operative would be a better government for everyone. Which isn't to say that the competitive isn't also very important!

I certainly don't think that a gender-unequal government in the other direction would be a better one. We need both - we need all voices. That is the foundation of the ideals of democracy.

I don't know why one should have confidence that female politicians specifically would have a strong desire to help men. Many may have a warm fuzzy feeling towards men. However, that doesn't necessarily translate into a strong enough drive to action.

I think it's quite likely many would like to maintain many/most/all situations where women get some preferential treatment and look at areas where men may do better and perhaps bring in more gender quotas - we already have them on State boards, now we're getting them for candidates for parties; there is increasing talk of gender quotas on company boards.

Even in the Equality Authority, the National Women's Council gets a nominee onto the board (at least they did up until recently) but there's no space for a nominee representing men. Some people are more equal than others in the equality world. Those interested in gender equality measures have a poor history of helping men when one also includes consideration of their willingness to do things that might disadvantage some men because they are male.

What I think needs to happen is that Gender Studies needs to be developed so that one audits the areas where men lose out, one collects information where men are negatively portrayed, etc. At the moment, academics are presenting people with an incomplete view of society.

iptba

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

It may not be a 50:50 split but I don't for a second believe that women only account for 14% of the best people in this country.

If the aim is to have the "best people", other initiatives would likely be better. And one doesn't get that many opportunities to change political systems.

28064212

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

It may not be a 50:50 split but I don't for a second believe that women only account for 14% of the best people in this country.

Either do I. I don't believe that they are being discriminated against because they're women though (although there is discrimination against areas which have significant female crossover). I also don't believe direct discrimination against men is the answer.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Well again, I disagree that it'd be a coincidence, as our current group of politicians tends to be drawn from a narrow band of society that doesn't produce as many talented people as much as are put on the polling cards.

So the answer is more Harneys, Coughlans and Cooper-Flynns?

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

No, that's already there. The goal is to reduce the gender discrimination, which currently, perhaps unintentionally occurs, to enable future generations of women to seek office.

The fact that there is not a 50:50 balance does not mean that there is discrimination.

What are the barriers specifically preventing more women entering politics? Some of the common reasons:

• Women tend to be the child-rearers - The answer is incentives for child-rearers. Quotas for this reason discriminate against men who rear children, and give an unfair advantage to women who aren't
• Politics is an old-boys club, you can't get anywhere without the right connections - Again, this is not gender-specific

Quotas don't address those problems, they just shift the discrimination to other places.

exe.pat

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Quick question for the men here.

Have you ever noticed that, even though more people die from testicular cancer than breast cancer, the latter is the one that gets all the attention? Have you ever noticed that, for all the (righteous) complaints made by feminism about many aspects of women in society, and in spite of the fact that most of our rulers are male, women still really aren't doing too bad in society overall, and there are ways (eg suicide, homelessness) where men are doing really badly? How does that work?!

May I suggest is that these things aren't in spite of the fact that most of the rulers are male, but are instead because of the fact that most of the rulers are male. The way I believe it works is quite simple - most men love women. Most men love women in a way that they don't love other men. When certain issues (notably healthcare and certain social issues) are brought to a table of men, those men are going to have their sense of love for women triggered by those issues, and are going to act.

Guess what? In spite of the impressions certain factions of feminism may have given you, most women love men. It is actually my fervent hope that a more gender-equal government would benefit men more than women. And I say that, in part, as someone who lost my youngest brother - someone I loved very much - to suicide. I also say it as someone who believes that men are, in general, awesome, and, in general, under-appreciated in society in some important ways. It is my hope that more women in government would redress that.

Also, in general, whereas men's socialisaiton tends towards being competitive, women's socialisation tends towards being co-operative. And I believe a government with more people in it whose socialisation has tended towards the co-operative would be a better government for everyone. Which isn't to say that the competitive isn't also very important!

I certainly don't think that a gender-unequal government in the other direction would be a better one. We need both - we need all voices. That is the foundation of the ideals of democracy.

Hi Deirdre

Im wondering about the accuracy of your gender stereotyping. Everywhere you look there is evidence of male co-operation, civilisation has been built by males co-operating, even female equality in the work force, ie. the technology that is used to create the birth control and the female friendly jobs that are necessary for women to contribute on an equal footing, are the result of male co-operation while there is scant evidence of fruits of female co-operation I know there are examples, nagging the government to by-pass democracy and mandate seats for women on the basis of gender rather than merit is one, but one of few and the merit if it is debatable. Also, within female social groups, competition and relational violence is high and during and after relationship toxicity and violence is from what I know, mainly female instigated.

So I'm wondering how you have come to your conclusions and what evidence there is to back them up?

Ebbs

Its all well and good saying 14% (or whatever) of TDs are female so there must be something wrong. However statistics are 74% of the time not actually accurately portraying the situation.

Does anyone have statistics of how many female canidates put themselves up? I'd hazard a guess that women have a greater chance of getting elected than their male counterparts. Would love to see if true.

Also, I know what people mean but to say they'd rather the "best person for the job" is laughable. In politics you will never get the best person for the job. Instead you will get the best person for the job with higher ambitions breaking it in the business world and you'll get someone highly connected running the country instead.

Annasopra

common sense brigade wrote: »

personally at the last elections there were plenty of women on the polling cards . i dont see the issue. You vote for the person you believe is the most capable for the job. i gave all my votes to men. I didnt see one woman worth a vote really in my area. Only people making a differnece were I live are men even though we have a few pompous overweight women doing the rounds.

In my constituency there were 2 out of 24. That is not plenty of women at all. There were about 3 or 4 constituencies with none.

CDfm

smccarrick wrote: »

Women are remarkable at bringing women's issues to the fore and attracting resources of all times towards their chosen fields- however the underhand methods used to detract from other charities and groups in order to further their aims are very often seriously circumspect.

Breast cancer is an issue- and it is being dealt with- with remarkable success. The shrill manner in which its in the media on a constant basis- has many women believing its a major killer, a woman's issue- and massively neglected- when none of these are in fact true.

By generating some sort of exclusivity for women with any topic- such as the examples with prisons in the UK- in my opinion the marginalisation of even other womens issues becomes inevitable. The biggest killer of women in Ireland- is heart disease. The women's health brigade are strangely mute about it- because they cheerfully consider it to be a men's issue (it does tend to affect men about 10 years earlier than women, and with very different sympthoms).......

The herd mentality- particularly revolving around breast cancer- is very troubling- and dangerous- allowing a platform to develop (such as treating men and women prisoners in a different manner)- inevitably results in these gross distortions.

That is quite awful that pop politics and campaigns dictate health care.

28064212 wrote: »

• Politics is an old-boys club, you can't get anywhere without the right connections - Again, this is not gender-specific

And more than likely the women will be from this club

The_Conductor

In the 2011 election-

86 of the candidates were women- however their percentage representation as candidates fell 2% from their 2007 tally, to 15.2%, as a result of a vastly larger number of candidates running (566 in total).

Of the 86 female candidates who ran- 25 were elected to the dail- a success rate of just under 30%

of the 480 male candidates- 141 were elected to the dail (there being 166 seats)- this represented an almost identical success rate of just under 30%

Women don't seem to be at a disadvantage to men- when they run for election- the issue appears to be that they simply aren't running.......

The_Conductor

CDfm wrote: »

That is quite awful that pop politics and campaigns dictate health care.

Its very true though- whoever shouts loudest gets heard- and very often the people who most need help or support- get ignored in the hullabulloo created by fanatics....... Look at the pensioners- the nurses- the teachers, the ESB, unions etc- the relative merits of their arguments don't matter one iota- you are satan incarnate if you say anything aganst teachers and their 5 months annual leave quota (not to mention their in-service days etc) or nurses and how since they started doing degrees, have decided that nursing isn't a vocation- that its a job like any other- and they will fight for their rights to ensure they are treated like any other 9-5 job- all the while they all want to be managers, so they don't actually have to deal with patients- what are nurses assistants for after all? (Entirely rhetorical of course).

Ireland assumes that whatever is happening at the moment is a temporary glitch, that somehow there are better days on the horizon......... Meanwhile we read about Leo Varadker suggesting we need another bail-out in 2012-2013, as we're not going to be able to borrow elsewhere........ Arrrrgggghhhhhh..........

The entire social process that governments have adhered to are nothing other than taking a shopping list from every special interest and waving a magic wand and granting their wishes. Now we don't have the money- and the special interest groups are cannibalising each other to survive- with some interesting consequences...........

CDfm

When these debates happen -its hard not to think of things in a gender/different species way.

Its infectious. I hate getting sucked into it.

I really would like to see more of the factual stuff about health stats etc

Informative stuff on health and social campaigns

Rainbow Cannon

Come on, guys. We all know that lacking a Y-chromosome is a disability we have to make allowances for.

donfers

Johnnymcg wrote: »

In my constituency there were 2 out of 24. That is not plenty of women at all. There were about 3 or 4 constituencies with none.

so what?

if the gender of the candidate enters the equation when it comes to deciding who you vote for then something is seriously wrong

This is precisely the problem but the "equality" campaigners can't see that what they are often doing is demonstrating sexism rather than eradicating it

The Irish electorate are notorious for reacting badly to "the elite" telling us what to do, fair enough in terms of demonstrations and street protests we are lazy b**tards but in terms of the popular vote I can see this measure not being very helpful to women candidates at all.

The perception (whether fair or not) that these women got a helping hand onto the voting card simply because they were born female may very well gather pace (especially as a kind of backlash to the politically correct, in fear of criticising feminist media/politicians we have). I forsee a kind of protest vote against feminist candidates even if they are wonderfully talented and able which is a shame but understandable. The Irish people don't take well to being forcefed a political dogma (Re. Nice treaty) and this is the worst possible solution to the archaic way our politicans are elected.

Another issue I would question is how some commentators argue that women need to be encouraged into political life. I don't know about you but I want my politicians to have a greater hunger and desire to serve their electorate than simply to be mollycoddled into the Dail perhaps simply to push some divisive gender-related special interest spiel our way. It's bad enough that many of our politicians already have localized motivations, god forbid if we through gender on top of that.

The best man or woman for the job please, and someone who is prepared to drip sweat, blood and tears (rather than be encouraged or supported to give the auld politics a go "if people are nice to me and don't yell and let me have time off to write my blog about how tough life is") to serve all Irish people and not discriminate based on how much of a donation they have received from the voter or where the voter comes from or who the father of the voter knows or if the voter has a vagina or penis. I am asking a lot I know but that's what I want and this measure only adds a new form of discrimination to the mix.

CDfm

I am very cynical especially cos it will be the same gene pool these new candidates will be selected from.

We have already seen here that on issues such as health that popular campaigns like breast cancer rule when issues like lung cancer and heart disease are the killers.

Gender & orientation social policies are totally screwed up so maybe an increased number of women candidates would mean that they have to prove their credentials in areas affecting others

orourkeda

Count Duckula wrote: »

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.

What make you think the female candidates are any better?

LeeHoffmann

Also, I know what people mean but to say they'd rather the "best person for the job" is laughable. In politics you will never get the best person for the job. Instead you will get...someone highly connected running the country instead.

Unfortunately, this is how I see things too. Perhaps I'm too cynical to contribute to this thread in a helpful way...I get the point of positive discrimination (regardless of the grounds - gender, race, sexual orientation etc) and I think things would change too slowly without it, and yet discrimination is wrong in itself. However, I'm too cynical to think that supporting it or eradicating it will benefit the ordinary people anyway. Success in politics seems to me to be based on who you know and how ruthless and charming you can be. I don't think many of them have 'our' best interests at heart. While I'm always happy to see more female potential candidates, the fact that they're female doesn't make me think that they will campaign for anything that matters to me and it doesn't make me feel like I am better-represented in the Dail. So, I guess I don't support it, but really it all seems moot to me

Also, I love the way that women in general are being painted as the bad guys here:

Originally Posted by smccarrick Women are remarkable at bringing women's issues to the fore and attracting resources of all times towards their chosen fields- however the underhand methods used to detract from other charities and groups in order to further their aims are very often seriously circumspect.

I feel sad that I have to point this out - but not all women.

Dravokivich

Galvasean wrote: »

I really don't see any way how making a certain amount of positions compulsory for women will help. Do we need more Mary Harneys or Mary Coughlans? because if we do introduce a quota that's exactly what we will get.

To be honest, Mary Harney got off to a good start in politics by bringing in the smokeless fuel policies.

There was just no proper direction within Fianna Fail or the Progressive Democrates to keep people in certain minster roles that were suited to them, which lead to our Health Services and Finacial Regulation to being such a mess.

Don't know much of Mary Coughlan, so can't really comment there.

CDfm

orourkeda wrote: »

What make you think the female candidates are any better?

i suppose it may be the way men have to prove their feminist credentials with female voters that we may see women candidates fighting for mens rights to get elected.

Just take Ivana Bacik - we all knew lots about her and her politics.

Men probably would not give her transfers who might well have done if she had discussed how she would represent them.

I certainly would vote for a woman if she would represent me -why not.

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

i suppose it may be the way men have to prove their feminist credentials with female voters that we may see women candidates fighting for mens rights to get elected.

Just take Ivana Bacik - we all knew lots about her and her politics.

Men probably would not give her transfers who might well have done if she had discussed how she would represent them.

I certainly would vote for a woman if she would represent me -why not.

There were a very large gap between my Labour candidates in the European elections with Ivana Bacik if I recall correctly being the second last candidate (I voted all the way down). I don't think the woman should be trusted by men - just as we saw with the women-only meeting of the members of the Oireachtas (while at the same time she has no problem calling for the need for gender balance); and the issue showed a lack of balance also - with the call that prison wasn't a suitable place for women.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Maybe they should do quotas temporarily - eg for 2 consecutive terms to gain attention and encourage participation. And most importantly make the idiots proposing this idea realise its pointless.

5live

I was reading in the papers today about how our european comissioner, Maire Geoghan Quinn, was chosen partly on the recommendation from Manuel Barroso that 'we' 'choose' a woman candidate.

It was not taken wholly on the ability of the candidate but her gender was a factor. Are we now to assume that we are under represented in Europe because our candidate was not the best but was ,instead, the best woman?

Are we now to have quotas for 30% of firemen, farmers, builders etc to be female too?

Or is it only high powered executive positions?

Or will the principle apply in reverse where 30% of positions in nursing and primary reaching and other such female dominated positions will have to be reserved for men? Regardless of ability too?

Bloody hell but this country is fast disappearing up a black hole all of its own making.

The only criterion when selecting candidates should be ability. Sex, colour, race, religion, hair colour, finger length, shoe size etc is immaterial.

Do the candidates have the ability to perform the requisite actions to the required degree? YES or NO.

Simple really isnt it? Or should i say, wasnt it?

iptba

Gender quota to rise to 40% after 7 years!!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0531/breaking32.html

Gender quota to rise over time - Hogan

The 30 per cent gender quota political parties will have to implement in order to avoid financial penalties will rise to 40 per cent after seven years, Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan said today.

Mr Hogan said Cabinet had today approved his controversial plans under the Electoral Amendment Political Funding Bill 2011 to cut State funding to political parties by half unless the gender target is hit.

The_Conductor

If the punishment is that state funding to political parties will be cut- it beggars the question- how much state funding do they get- and why am I as a taxpayer- funding political parties whose ideologies I vehemently disagree with (and whose members I consider to be incompetent at best......)

Politics in Ireland is rotten to the core.......