Ivana Bacik. A Failed Political Entity?

gizmo555 · 01-03-2011 01:43PM

alastair wrote: »

Ehh, I take it that Mary O Rourke is equally 'sexist' then?
Who decided that the meeting would be women only?
Why assume it was Ivana?

Because, as Senator Bacik said, it was hosted by her and O'Rourke. At a minimum, she concurred with it being women-only and was quite unabashed in letting Norris know.

But, yes, you're right, in this instance O'Rourke was being equally sexist as were all the women TDs and Senators who agreed to attend.

As was asked in the post linked to, imagine the furore if a meeting of Oireachtas members on penal policy with a visiting legislator from the UK was proposed, from which women were to be excluded.

alastair · 01-03-2011 02:07PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

Because, as Senator Bacik said, it was hosted by her and O'Rourke. At a minimum, she concurred with it being women-only and was quite unabashed in letting Norris know.

But, yes, you're right, in this instance O'Rourke was being equally sexist as were all the women TDs and Senators who agreed to attend.

As was asked in the post linked to, imagine the furore if a meeting of Oireachtas members on penal policy with a visiting legislator from the UK was proposed, from which women were to be excluded.

So - to recap, you don't know if she had anything to do with the meeting being women-only, and all we do know is that she merely concurred with another (Mary O'Rourke) that they would host such a meeting. Any group inside the Oireachtas can choose to meet, and on whatever terms (or exclusions) they decide amongst themselves - there's one going on at the moment - it doesn't mean that the participants are therefore 'sexist'. In fact the notion that Mary O'Rourke is 'sexist' surely does not compute?

The Corinthian · 01-03-2011 02:14PM

alastair wrote: »

So - to recap, you don't know if she had anything to do with the meeting being women-only, and all we do know is that she merely concurred with another (Mary O'Rourke) that they would host such a meeting.

She clearly had something to do with the meeting, at the very least supported it, despite it's exclusion of men from attending. Additionally she has repeatedly supported women's rights exclusively while in office and shown little sympathy for men's rights. This is all on the record and has been highlighted here.

I have repeatedly asked if this is not the case that her apologists should put the record straight. I'm still waiting.

Any group inside the Oireachtas can choose to meet, and on whatever terms (or exclusions) they decide amongst themselves - there's one going on at the moment - it doesn't mean that the participants are therefore 'sexist'. In fact the notion that Mary O'Rourke is 'sexist' surely does not compute?

Sorry, but exclusion based upon gender is sexist by definition. Were a meeting to take place inside the Oireachtas that excluded women solely on the basis of gender it would, rightly, be labeled as sexist.

Jesus Wept · 01-03-2011 02:17PM

panda100 wrote: »

I'm no big fan of her's but I think its unfair to single her out for having no history of achievement in business or public life as very few people running in the elections would have had those.

She has done excellent work in the equality arena, and that can't be said for many candidates. She's hardly a failed political entity when she just narrowly lost out on winning a seat.

Can you provide links on her wokr in the equality arena?
The only one I've read thus far is how she believes women should be imprisoned for many crimes that men are.

Curious as to her other stances.

gizmo555 · 01-03-2011 02:18PM

alastair wrote: »

So - to recap, you don't know if she had anything to do with the meeting being women-only, and all we do know is that she merely concurred with another (Mary O'Rourke) that they would host such a meeting.

Well we know that either Bacik or O'Rourke decided it would be women-only. Who's your money on?

We also know that whoever decided, both of them concurred with the meeting being for women only.

alastair wrote: »

Any group inside the Oireachtas can choose to meet, and on whatever terms (or exclusions) they decide amongst themselves - there's one going on at the moment - it doesn't mean that the participants are therefore 'sexist'.

If the sole criterion for admission to the meeting is gender, it most certainly does. All women from all parties and none were invited. No men were allowed to attend:

Deputy Mary O’Rourke and I are hosting a meeting with her for all women Members of the Oireachtas. I am sorry that we cannot invite any male colleagues interested in this issue . . .

And it is important once again to note, this was not a social event - it was a serious meeting on penal policy with a visiting legislator from the UK.

alastair wrote: »

In fact the notion that Mary O'Rourke is 'sexist' surely does not compute?

IMHO, it does in this instance.

Kumejima · 01-03-2011 02:24PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nope, I'd call him a "guy" as in "He's a nice guy, she's a nice girl".

I meet lots of 32, 42, 52, 62 and 72 year old women through my work. Believe me, I've never come across one who was offended by being referred to as a "girl".
I've met plenty who were thrilled by it though.

Godge · 01-03-2011 02:37PM

T runner wrote: »

"It is strange that this sort of rhetoric is always about 'fathers' rights', never fathers' responsibilities, nor indeed children's rights," she said.

I think that this is a fair comment in the particular situation. It is childrens rights that the courts must and so consider.

Mens groups in these situations should cease focusing their personal attack on woman and their groups. Women will largely try and do what is right by their children. As the courts must. Men need to prove that their argument is in teh best interest of teh child ine each individual case.

.

I find these comments among the most sexist I have read on a serious messageboard.

I am a male parent and am outraged that there is a worldview that it is accepted that women largely try and do what it right by their children and that men need to prove in court the same.

Imagine that upon marriage, a woman had to give up her job. Imagine also that the defence was that men upon getting married largely have to be the sole breadwinner for their family and should therefore keep their job but that women need to prove in court that they are the sole breadwinner and that it is in the interests of their family to keep their job. Same principles as your argument but this practice was outlawed nearly thirty years ago.

Most men have since let go of their prejudices and left them behind and become non-sexist. However, there is an element of feminism that has maintained a sexist and female equivalent of mysoginst view of the world. This is especially prevalent in two areas:

(1) Women know better than men when it comes to child-rearing and should always get custody.
(2) Mothers should not be sent to jail because it is so hard to leave their children behind but it is not a problem for fathers.

This is an unbalanced view of the world and is inherently discriminatory and sexist. Anyone who believes in true equality of the sexes should condemn both of those sentiments but I don't expect they will.

Sleepy · 01-03-2011 03:04PM

T runner wrote: »

Wanting equality in Irish society does not equal a seething viceral hatred of men.

Ivana Bacik does not campaign for equality in Irish society. She seeks to grant women preferential status over men. From what you've posted in this and other threads, I can only assume that your sense of self-propriety doesn't let you see this as you clearly share that goal.

The barriers that prevent women getting into politics also prevent other minorities from same.

Firstly women are technically a majority of the population of voting age and therefore not a minority.

The discriminative quotas you're suggesting don't remove the barriers, they simply provide women with a ladder to jump over all others affected by them. Again, this isn't equality, it's imbalance.

Technically yes, but the barriers for putting themselves forward are far greater.

That the lifestyle choices of one group of people mean they are less likely to make the sacrifices that another group of people make in order to do something doesn't make the barriers against them greater. It just means they perceive them as greater.

If I could double my salary by moving to England, does the fact I'm not prepared to move there mean I'm discriminated against based on my geographic location? If I choose to work normal hours in order to spend time with my children and forfeit the career advancement that would come with working longer hours am I being discriminated against? No. The lower salary I have reflects my chosen work/life balance.

If women are choosing not to run for public office how is that any different? That their collective, self-determined, lifestyle choices result in the consequence that women are "under-represented" in the Dail.

Why is a majority of legislators being male a bad thing anyway? Is there any evidence to suggest that women make better legislators or that a perfectly balanced 50:50 ratio will result in Nirvana?

In a free and equal society it is the job of the legislature to ensure that legislation grants equal rights and responsibilities to all citizens regardless of their gender, sex or race. In this regard, I suspect that there is actually still a gender imbalance in Ireland and it's not in favour of men.

If women's groups want to address the societal issues that mean less women are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to stand for public office, by all means examine them and attempt to change societies mind (here's a hint as to where I'd begin: most of the societal pressures on a woman come from other women rather than men) but don't for a second think that the collective decisions of your gender give you the right to discriminate against mine.

No man in his right mind will vote for the likes of Bacik who seek to discriminate him and no sane woman should be doing so either.

alastair · 01-03-2011 03:19PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

Well we know that either Bacik or O'Rourke decided it would be women-only. Who's your money on?

Neither of them? It may well have been the Baroness' choice. Given that it's the only instance of Ivana or Mary attending such a meeting in the Dail, you need to look to the distinction in this arrangement - my money's on the visitor.

gizmo555 · 01-03-2011 03:28PM

alastair wrote: »

Neither of them? It may well have been the Baroness' choice. Given that it's the only instance of Ivana or Mary attending such a meeting in the Dail, you need to look to the distinction in this arrangement - my money's on the visitor.

The visitor could have requested what she liked (and it's only supposition on your part that she made any such request) - only Bacik and O'Rourke were in a position to decide that it was appropriate to act in such a sexist manner and exclude male legislators from the meeting merely for being male.

Onthe3rdDay · 01-03-2011 03:36PM

Ivana Bacik is A Failed Political Entity. She lost this race and This is after several attempts to get elected. Will this change in the future? Anything is possible but it's unlikely. If Labour goes into Government with FG they won't have 20 seats in the next Dail.

If she can't get in on the most successful Day Labour ever had, It's unlikely to happen when Labour has a traditional Election day of mild to middling disappointment!

hatrickpatrick · 01-03-2011 03:39PM

I love also the way there's all this talk of actually reducing hours or somehow making concessions to women so as they don't have to give up their family life to work in politics.

I mean sure, actually it's a good idea.
Now how about suggesting that a man who also loves his family be given the same concessions?

Are we equal or not? Are we fighting for equality or not?

I'll give you an analogy here about Bacik

There are two doors, the red door and the yellow door.
Only women are allowed to go through the red door. Only men are allowed to go through the yellow door.

Quite rightly, the women are pissed and want to be allowed to go through the yellow door as well.

HOWEVER, when they fight for "equality", they demand access to the yellow door - while defending the exclusivity of the red door right to the end. We want to be allowed to go through your door - but if you come near our door, well that's a right we have, you can't. EQUALITY!

See what I mean? If the analogy is lost on you then I give up.

Equality means FULL equality. It does not mean equality where you gain, and inequality where you gain. If you want true equality you have to accept that you will LOSE your privileges as well as gaining other people's.

Personally I would love to live in a fully equal society with no advantages to either gender. But no way in hell will I accept a society where men have to give up all their advantages while women get to keep theirs. It's all or nothing.

Baron_Kunkel · 01-03-2011 03:47PM

This thread is meandering way off topic.

T runner · 01-03-2011 03:52PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Whether it is fair comment or not is arguable and irrelevant the point I made regardless. What I pointed out, with two examples in this thread, and others have with other examples, is that there is considerable evidence on record to her being anything but friendly twoards fathers' and men's rights in general.

The fact that you are referencing unsupported comment means taht theer is NO evidence for your logical jumps.

Some here have defended her by saying that she has, according to them, defended fathers' or men's rights in the past, yet when challanged to supply evidence where she has done this in any meaningful way they fall curiously silent To date, the closest she has come to defending any male right has been to support paternity leave, and even then only as a means to fulfill responsibility, not a right.

And this is a lot closer than must men in the Dail have done to defend fathers interests. As has been pointed out to you, in custody cases CHILDRENS rights are paramount NOT fathers rights. She is correct in pointing this out.

She has continually supported issues of gender equality.

Incidently how are these mens rights groups doing in their pursuit of womens rights?

So in the light of her views on the record it is very, very difficult to conclude that she is anything other than grossly biased in favour of women, if not actively a misandrist.

That is an outlandish assumption to make based on the unsubstantiated opinions of John Waters and others with axes to grind.

Her opinion is entirely consistant with taht of the Irish courts: In custody cases Childrens rights are more relevant to custody issues.

If you belive that fathers rights should take precedent over childrens rights then please make your case clearly.

Looks like she is also right in her assesment of teh self rigteousness of some "fathers rights" activists. She disagrees with them, therefore she is a misandrist.

If I am wrong, please let me know where she has actively supported fathers' or men's rights in the past?

Please define exactly what you mean by mens rights.

Then please demonstrate cases where she has actively tried to curb mens rights. How many dail TDs can you say have actively tried to support mens rights? She is one of teh few who has advocated equal pataernal leave. She has probably done more for male parents advancement than teh vast majority of male TDs.

It is our society that dictates that carers are generally women (in 99% of cases main carers in families with 1 main carer are female.

The bias is towards teh carer of teh child, NOT teh mother.

You need to change this culture and stop making personal attacks against women. This should not be a zero-sum game. Having gender quotas will actuallya ccelarate gender reform for all sexes. Ironically mens groups cant see this while engaging in their foolhardy tirade against women and feminists.

This is the kind of sexist crap that we have come to expect; women are assumed to "try and do what is right by their children", while men "need to prove that" they are. Women need not prove anything.
I'm sorry, but that is simply chauvinistic bigotry and not worthy of any respect.

Whatever. I expected you to reduce yoru argument to a personal attack sooner or later.

Both women and men need to prove that the childs rights and best interests are kept in mind in custody cases. The person who is NOT the primary carer needs to demonstrate that the child would be better served by changing the primary carer. If he/she cant demonstarte this custody (rightly) will go to teh primary carer. This is in the best interests of the child.

The issue heer is that teh primary carer is almost always teh mother. This is not te mothers fault.

These men are actually losing custody of their children becuase our male orientated society dictates that women should be primary carers.

If teher was equality of oppurtunity in the work place, adequate child care, equality of income etc then tehse men could be the primary childcarers and gain custody of their children.

Ironically, gender quotas will put a strong political spotlight on these issues if implemented. People like Ivana Bacik will actually help would be Primary carers not hinder them in teh long run.

aDeener · 01-03-2011 03:56PM

T runner wrote: »

The fact that you are referencing unsupported comment means taht theer is NO evidence for your logical jumps.

And this is a lot closer than must men in the Dail have done to defend fathers interests. As has been pointed out to you, in custody cases CHILDRENS rights are paramount NOT fathers rights. She is correct in pointing this out.

She has continually supported issues of gender equality.

Incidently how are these mens rights groups doing in their pursuit of womens rights?

That is an outlandish assumption to make based on the unsubstantiated opinions of John Waters and others with axes to grind.

Her opinion is entirely consistant with taht of the Irish courts: In custody cases Childrens rights are more relevant to custody issues.

If you belive that fathers rights should take precedent over childrens rights then please make your case clearly.

Looks like she is also right in her assesment of teh self rigteousness of some "fathers rights" activists. She disagrees with them, therefore she is a misandrist.

Please define exactly what you mean by mens rights.

Then please demonstrate cases where she has actively tried to curb mens rights. How many dail TDs can you say have actively tried to support mens rights? She is one of teh few who has advocated equal pataernal leave. She has probably done more for male parents advancement than teh vast majority of male TDs.

It is our society that dictates that carers are generally women (in 99% of cases main carers in families with 1 main carer are female.

The bias is towards teh carer of teh child, NOT teh mother.

You need to change this culture and stop making personal attacks against women. This should not be a zero-sum game. Having gender quotas will actuallya ccelarate gender reform for all sexes. Ironically mens groups cant see this while engaging in their foolhardy tirade against women and feminists.

Whatever. I expected you to reduce yoru argument to a personal attack sooner or later.

Both women and men need to prove that the childs rights and best interests are kept in mind in custody cases. The person who is NOT the primary carer needs to demonstrate that the child would be better served by changing the primary carer. If he/she cant demonstarte this custody (rightly) will go to teh primary carer. This is in the best interests of the child.

The issue heer is that teh primary carer is almost always teh mother. This is not te mothers fault.

These men are actually losing custody of their children becuase our male orientated society dictates that women should be primary carers.

If teher was equality of oppurtunity in the work place, adequate child care, equality of income etc then tehse men could be the primary childcarers and gain custody of their children.

Ironically, gender quotas will put a strong political spotlight on these issues if implemented. People like Ivana Bacik will actually help would be Primary carers not hinder them in teh long run.

the only people ivana wants to help are herself and other militant feminists

mgmt · 01-03-2011 03:59PM

T runner wrote: »

Please define exactly what you mean by mens rights.

Men are currently discriminated by insurance companies. A ruling today might change this

.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 01-03-2011 04:13PM

I honestly can't believe some of the comments here.

As regards rights, I think what T_Runner is saying is:

Children > Women > Men

Here's what I think:

Children > (Women == Men)

Just my 2 cents.

T runner · 01-03-2011 04:14PM

aDeener wrote: »

equality my balls.

she harps on about choice then seeks to have a quota introduced for female politicians. you couldn't make it up. her downright idiocy knows no bounds. she is disgustingly laughable character and thankfully the people of Dún Laoighre saw sense in rejecting such a clown

You see she is advocating a candidacy quota which will have no affect whatsover on the elctorate's right to choose candidates.

Please get your facts right before you personally attack someone. Better still conduct yourself with dignitya nd cease teh persoanl attack.

FYI gender quotas are used in 100 countries worldwide. This is not some radical idea invented by Ms Bacik.

A man argues with dignity and intelligence. A boy uses stupid petty insults to make his arguments. Too many little piss pant boys in this country if you ask me.

T runner · 01-03-2011 04:16PM

aDeener wrote: »

the only people ivana wants to help are herself and other militant feminists

Any chance of substantiating your argument like a grown up?

mgmt · 01-03-2011 04:18PM

T runner wrote: »

You see she is advocating a candidacy quota which will have no affect whatsover on the elctorate's right to choose candidates.

Please get your facts right before you personally attack someone. Better still conduct yourself with dignitya nd cease teh persoanl attack.

FYI gender quotas are used in 100 countries worldwide. This is not some radical idea invented by Ms Bacik.

A man argues with dignity and intelligence. A boy uses stupid petty insults to make his arguments. Too many little piss pant boys in this country if you ask me.

Huh, that does not make sense. A man may be prevented from running for his party in his constituency because he is a man. Inequality.

T runner · 01-03-2011 04:29PM

Godge wrote: »

I find these comments among the most sexist I have read on a serious messageboard.

I seriously doubt that, and spare me the self righteous outrage.

I am a male parent and am outraged that there is a worldview that it is accepted that women largely try and do what it right by their children and that men need to prove in court the same.

No, that is a strawman. Both women and men need to prove in court that their custody of the child is in their best interest. Keeping the main Child carer as the principle custodian seems to eb in teh childs best interest unless it can be proved otherwise.

Society dictates that women are almost always the principle child carer.
Dont attack women or feminists for our sexist society.

Imagine that upon marriage, a woman had to give up her job. Imagine also that the defence was that men upon getting married largely have to be the sole breadwinner for their family and should therefore keep their job but that women need to prove in court that they are the sole breadwinner and that it is in the interests of their family to keep their job. Same principles as your argument but this practice was outlawed nearly thirty years ago.

My argument is that teh courts judge (rightly) in favour of teh child and this usually involves keeping the same primary carer in palce (naturally).

Because the primary carer is usually a female some men view ita s sexist discrimination. It discriminates for the primary child carer. Do you ahve a problem with this?

Most men have since let go of their prejudices and left them behind and become non-sexist.

Have they really?

(1) Women know better than men when it comes to child-rearing and should always get custody.

Wrong, the primary child rearer should usually get custody.

(2) Mothers should not be sent to jail because it is so hard to leave their children behind but it is not a problem for fathers.

Wrong, it is ludicrous that primary child rearers should go to jail for minor crimes leaving tehir children to services.

This is an unbalanced view of the world and is inherently discriminatory and sexist. Anyone who believes in true equality of the sexes should condemn both of those sentiments but I don't expect they will.

I condemn your illogical misinterpretation of the courts ruling in favour of children as some kind of adisguised attack on men by women and feminists.

T runner · 01-03-2011 04:36PM

mgmt wrote: »

Huh, that does not make sense. A man may be prevented from running for his party in his constituency because he is a man. Inequality.

A woman may also be prevented in running because she is a woman also.

These issues and anomalies have all being sorted out in other systems.

Pointing out possible difficulties is not going to cut it.
Nomination procedures can be altered to get around this. Also parties would ahve a window of time to sort teh ship. Copy how they do it elsewhere it works there, it will work here.

If a party is struggling to find women (or men) , they are not removing the barriers towards equal partcipation in politics. The public will see the "gender" candidate and punsih the party accordingly.

Incomp[etence gets punished.

The quota system already inplace guarantees TDs from certain geographical areas.

Many people would argue that there are better politicians then the many parish pump TDS we have. You could argue that these politicians are discriminated against because of where they live. Do you ahve a problem with this?

mgmt · 01-03-2011 04:47PM

T runner wrote: »

A woman may also be prevented in running because she is a woman also.

Women are not prevented from running in Ireland.

These issues and anomalies have all being sorted out in other systems.

Those systems are simply unequal.

The quota system already inplace guarantees TDs from certain geographical areas.

Many people would argue that there are better politicians then the many parish pump TDS we have. You could argue that these politicians are discriminated against because of where they live. Do you ahve a problem with this?

Our system of PR-STV definitely promotes parish pump politics. A debate on a system which avoids the focus on TDs fixing local potholes and more on national issues would be welcome imo.

T runner · 01-03-2011 04:57PM

mgmt wrote: »

Women are not prevented from running in Ireland.

The gender quatas would be gender neutral.

Those systems are simply unequal.

Thats your opinion. You dont even seem to know how the quota system might work here so your opinion is not informed.

The majority of commentators in these countries think that their system is fair and that their demaocracy is stronger when it is more representative of teh population.

Our system of PR-STV definitely promotes parish pump politics. A debate on a system which avoids the focus on TDs fixing local potholes and more on national issues would be welcome imo.

Youre deliberately avoiding teh question. We have a quota system here now. Do you also find thsi system "unequal"??

purple_hatstand · 01-03-2011 05:05PM

mgmt wrote: »

.....Those systems are simply unequal......

In Sweden, 45% of elected politicians are women.
In Ireland, the figure before Friday stood at 13.3%.

One of these systems generates a ratio of women-men in Parliament which is more equal than the other.

T runner · 01-03-2011 05:07PM

Aiden Freezing Jelly wrote: »

As regards rights, I think what T_Runner is saying is:
Children > Women > Men

No you are deliberately buildinga strawman: This is what i have said:

T runner wrote: »

As has been pointed out to you, in custody cases CHILDRENS rights are paramount................The bias is towards the carer of the child, NOT the mother.
................The person who is NOT the primary carer needs to demonstrate that the child would be better served by changing the primary carer..

Why not try to actually argue with my points rather than with a strawman.

Here's what I think:

Children > (Women == Men)

100%. And in custody cases, the primary child carer should not be changed regardless of their sex unless the other parent can show that the trauma of changing primary carer for the child can be offset by the childs better interest with the non-primary carer as custodian.

I.E Childs interests before Mothers or Fathers "rights".

mgmt · 01-03-2011 05:08PM

T runner wrote: »

The gender quatas would be gender neutral.

Phrasing it differently does not change the fact that it is unfair and undemocratic.

Quota systems may also be constructed as gender-neutral, which means that they aim at correcting the underrepresentation of both women and men. In this case, the requirement may be that men as well as women should
constitute 40 per cent of the members of a committee, or that neither gender should occupy more than 60 per cent and
no less that 40 per cent of the seat
http://www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/beijing12/Chapter4_Dahlerup.pdf

mgmt · 01-03-2011 05:11PM

purple_hatstand wrote: »

In Sweden, 45% of elected politicians are women.
In Ireland, the figure before Friday stood at 13.3%.

One of these systems generates a ratio of women-men in Parliament which is more equal than the other.

Our system is more equal. It gave equal opportunities to both men and women.

RJGMovie · 01-03-2011 05:23PM

T runner wrote: »

.... Too many little piss pant boys in this country if you ask me.

The sound of an extreme feminist if I ever heard one.

invinciblePRSTV · 01-03-2011 05:24PM

mgmt wrote: »

Our system of PR-STV definitely promotes parish pump politics. A debate on a system which avoids the focus on TDs fixing local potholes and more on national issues would be welcome imo.

I'm veering off topic, but PR-STV is just a method for the tallying and counting if votes. It doesn't systematically encourage parish pump politics anymore then it encourages the election of Trotskyist ideologues.

The large number of parliamentarians for such a small population combined with pitifully weak local government structures is the reason parish pump politics is a feature of our polity.

You can change to whatever system you like, be it D'Hondt, FPTP, AV or whatever else, but until you address the factors outlined above you'll still get people voting for the same reasons.

On Bacik, she should consider putting in the work NOW for to win a council seat in her local area in DSE with a view to contesting that constituency eventually. However my money would be on her again being one of the candidates for the next Euro's, as thats the easier option for an academic unwilling to go on the funeral circuit and build a base for themselves.

On Gender Quota's, they'll never get implemented without constitutional reform. And you can bet your bottom that the reactionary Irish electorate will vote it down. Like Blair's babes in 1997, the way is clear for an enterprising party to implement gender quotas in their candidate selection. If Martin has any cop on and listens to his people he'll do this for FF.

Ivana Bacik. A Failed Political Entity?

Comments