Will Fianna Fail win the next election?

Overheal

clown bag wrote: »

Personally I was delighted to see FF win the last election as anyone with half a brain could see the property crash coming and I know had the other lot been elected that people would blame them and it would mean FF escaping blame. I was glad labour and FG weren't elected as they would be getting buried now never to be elected for another generation if they were in power.

Thats an excellent point. For the same reason Obama will be hard pressed to get re-elected. He promised so much so quickly without realizing the greater implications, and now opposition leaders cant point at him and call him wrong. If at this point the economy begins to recover they can still say it was natural for it to recover with or without stimulus.

Either way, the largest recession in 50 years is not something you want to be seen presiding over.

Dannyboy83

T runner wrote: »

I don't lie pal. You are happy with the status quo (13% females) because it represents their ability.

But isn't that a good thing?
Discriminating based based on merit, not gender?
(Otherwise we're stuck on the gender carousel with Mary Coughlan and Sarah Palin and I already feel queasy)

I don't understand why you disagree with his point tbh.
Hes not in favour of blocking women from participating.
He is in favour of blocking an underqualified person from participating at the expense of a qualified person, regardless of their gender.

If we had a meritocracy, rather than a kleptocracy, its likely we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

While it's really difficult to implement (as our political history proves), if we don't aspire to it, we're in for another 70 odd years of mismanagement.

T runner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If this does indeed "represent their ability", EVERYONE should be "happy with it". So why claim that supporting that creates a "backward country" ?

In my opinion a state with a representation of 13% females is backward (almost worst in Europe), and people who believe this is because men are that much more able than women are in my view backward thinking.
When I see someone who holds this view pointing the finger at Ireland and shouting backward I feel they need to turn the finger back on themselves.

Believing that 13% of women in politics is fair and represents their ability quite backward.

FF has 7% female TDs, FG dont fare much better. Our next government will come from publicans, lawyers, school teahers and female relatives of publicans, lawyers, school teahers. Putting FF or FG after their name makes little odds.

Off-topic:

1) Lose the "pal".

2) You've previously proven that you either (a) lie and misrepresent my posts or (b) can't read. You can choose which applies.

If you are going to try and insult please do it like a grown up.

It has been proven I did not lie and misrepresent your post because your self publicised tattle to the mods on that topic had the conclusive result that the mods dont think I lie etc. OK? Now, enough of the insults.

T runner

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

But isn't that a good thing?
Discriminating based based on merit, not gender?
(Otherwise we're stuck on the gender carousel with Mary Coughlan and Sarah Palin and I already feel queasy)

I don't understand why you disagree with his point tbh.
Hes not in favour of blocking women from participating.
He is in favour of blocking an underqualified person from participating at the expense of a qualified person, regardless of their gender.

If we had a meritocracy, rather than a kleptocracy, its likely we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

While it's really difficult to implement (as our political history proves), if we don't aspire to it, we're in for another 70 odd years of mismanagement.

I think kleptocracy is an exageration given the recent corruption index findings.

I do not believe candidacies are given out in this country based on merit.
There are many structural barriers to females and many males becoming candidates. A meritocracy in theory is an elegant ideal but it will not be achieved here without a catalyst like a quota system, not in a hundred years.

FFs figure of 7% female TDs compares favourable with the Turkish parliaments figure of 4.4% but little else. This is the 21st century and this statistic is for our major government party. FG dont fare much better.

Whoever get in FF and FG the government will be picked out of a group of TDs that has 22% publicans or thereabouts.

We need radical change here. If we dont change things after this debacle ---and not by voting in new FF (FG)----we will never change it.

Liam Byrne

T runner wrote: »

In my opinion a state with a representation of 13% females is backward (almost worst in Europe), and people who believe this is because men are that much more able than women are in my view backward thinking.

Believing that 13% of women in politics is fair and represents their ability quite backward.

So what percentage WOULD be representative, then ? Based on ability and people actually wanting the job, that is....

Because you accused me above of wanting - specifically - the 13%, which was - at best - an incorrect assumption by you.

I personally think there's about 10 capable TDs at most in the Dail, and I couldn't care less if 99% of them were male OR female as long as they actually did the job they're supposed to.

T runner wrote: »

If you are going to try and insult please do it like a grown up.

It has been proven I did not lie and misrepresent your post because your self publicised tattle to the mods on that topic had the conclusive result that the mods dont think I lie etc. OK? Now, enough of the insults.

Firstly, I wasn't trying to insult you; I was trying to keep the majority of my post on-topic.

Secondly, you tried to imply that I was happy with the 13% in this thread, which is wrong, so I'm bound to contradict you.

Thirdly, on the other thread re drink driving the mod's precise post was :

nesf wrote: »

You either can't read or you're deliberately misquoting someone. Quit it.

..which is precisely what I said above.

You still went on in that thread to ask "Can we infer from your comment...." and you went off on another tangent that I hadn't said and that couldn't be inferred.

So no, I'm not out to "insult" anyone, but of course I will stand up for myself when misrepresented and misquoted - who wouldn't ?

By all means quiz me on the actual content of my posts and the opinions that I have stated in them, but can we please stay on-topic without you guessing, suggesting, inferring, implying, etc, like that about my posts ?