We get the politicians we deserve.

Mr. Incognito

I was watching a TV programme tonight that examined the change in UK politicians in the last twenty years. It's central point that politicians have become immersed in the celebrity culture and we vote on likeability rather than policy with predictable results. Ego-centric selfish corrupt idiots are the result.

The problem is in Ireland this is exabberated by the historic levels of corruption, the culture of wink wink and nod nod and everyone creaming off the top.

I thought with education people would finally cease this crap of civil war politics. i.e Daddy voted for FF so I'm voting FF. The problem with Ireland is we do not elect the best people for the job, we elect the local publican, the local teacher on sabbatical and then scratch our heads and wonder where it all went wrong when these people are flung in completely over their heads and castigate them when they run for cover behind a team of advisors and public relations experts. I remember someone asking Lenihan ho long he had to get to grips with the Finance portfolio and the turnaround time was ONE day. I'm sure they an introductory briefing but do we really want the country run by people that are learning on the job? Can you remember your first few weeks in a new job?? And how are these portfolios handed out? They are given for loyalty to the new leader or used as bargaining chips with new coilition partners, look at Mary Coughlin as Tainiste, a woman so out of her depth it is breathtaking but Cowen has no problem letting her tank because she is loyal to him.

I have to say I'm personally sick of it. I voted Green at the last election because they stank the least and they might have be niave but at least idealists have something they believe in and won't sell out for a quick buck or popularity rating because they have ideals right? I was proved wrong when the rowed back on almost their entire election manifesto and they will be rightly wiped out when this country goes to the polls again. I mean what have the done for public transport? For Tara, for the incinerator for anything? Carbon Taxes that punish the poor and a BIK free bicycle, that's the sum of their achievements and I see the Minister for Snow ducking and diving instead of rolling up his sleeves and getting the fecking roads gritted.

Labour is a loose affiliation of such, their prior two leaders have been barristers, hardly working class are they.

Okay- it's our fault for the gobeens we have that get voted in locally because local government is such a shambles that when they provide the service that we should all be entitled to by a working local government we are so grateful we keep voting them in, but that's local government and is another matter.

Instead of another rant I would propose reform of national government in one simple easy way, stop making Ministerial positions the whim of the party leader, let ordinary TD's make a pitch and have a concrete business plan so to speak, an agenda of what they would like to do if elected to that Ministerial Position and let the public vote on it nationally. That way I'd hope that at least we would have competent Ministers running the various departments. By all means lets have local TD's for local issues but then lets elect the best man for the job and let them at the Ministerial positions. The whole point of the legislature is when the majority of TD's pass a motion that becomes law, Lining muppets up by the party whip to tow the party line ignores real ability and talent that might be hidden on the backbenches doing nowt but biding their time and buying rounds on the Dail Bar making friends in the vain hope that someday, maybe............

Slattery86

While I agree with you on the gombeen element in certain sectors of Irish political life, it cannot be overlooked that some people are been incredibly narrow-minded and dismissive of the current cabinet- even in the face of the banking crises and other mishaps. This rationale is just as backward as those who vote for a party because of family or historical reasons, as many people who would dismiss FF (or any political party for that matter) beforehand, will never see to it that a minister of Lenihan's calibre has at least made attempts towards resolving the national crisis.

Same logic works with the greens. Don’t forget that the introduction of the windfall tax and new planning laws is equally down to Green input into government legislation. Likewise FF and the Greens have introduced laws for Local Government reform, probably the first such attempt ever since the formation of the county council structure by Act of Parliament in the 1890’s.

Yes these changes took a long time to come about, and much damage has been done- but it is never too late. Another benefit with FF/ Greens acting in the national and economical interest is that this will have a knock on affect on FG, Labour etc- bringing higher standards into the political system in the future. It works the other way of course, such as back in the 1970s/ 80s when corruption was more excusable in even FG, as they could point fingers at FF as been more corrupt.

Let’s just await the future of Irish politics after the aforementioned reforms. There is no point IN exclaiming these kinds of hypothesis in an OP when they are not strictly true, because Irish society and political society are changing for the better when you take the reform of Local governance and other key aspects of national life into the equation. Even Lenihan and Bruton are putting aside partisan bickering to work towards the national interest, and that can only be a sign of progress.

Liam Byrne

Slattery86 wrote: »

While I agree with you on the gombeen element in certain sectors of Irish political life, it cannot be overlooked that some people are been incredibly narrow-minded and dismissive of the current cabinet- even in the face of the banking crises and other mishaps. This rationale is just as backward as those who vote for a party because of family or historical reasons, as many people who would dismiss FF (or any political party for that matter) beforehand, will never see to it that a minister of Lenihan's calibre has at least made attempts towards resolving the national crisis.

"mishaps" ???? The correct words are "cock-ups" and "corruption".

FF apologists don't seem to get this AT ALL; it's not that we dismiss them because of who they are, or completely ignore the small things they've managed to get right......the fact is that they've completely and utterly screwed up on a royal scale on items far too numerous to mention.

So we're PERFECTLY entitled to dismiss them as useless; they've proven it.

Slattery86 wrote: »

Same logic works with the greens.

The Greens made promises to people before the last election, and reneged immediately.

They are also adamant that they are bringing in additional penal taxes for being "not green", despite the facts that people have either (a) paid already or (b) have no alternatives......but the way they go on you'd swear things were lifestyle choices.....

Introduce the alternatives FIRST, and THEN penalise people for not using them.

Slattery86 wrote: »

Another benefit with FF/ Greens acting in the national and economical interest is that this will have a knock on affect on FG, Labour etc- bringing higher standards into the political system in the future.

Show me ONE thing that shows that they're "acting in the national and economical interest" ???? Ensuring that people have to pay a fortune for years to come so that the bankers don't get their due ?

Ensuring that people can barely get by month-to-month ?

Ensuring that those who invested in banks, and the banks' heads that devised gambling strategies, and developers who went mental, get OUR money, while we struggle to make ends meet ?

That is NOT in the national interest.

Slattery86 wrote: »

Irish society and political society are changing for the better

Yup, that's why there's no reform yet of the unvouched expenses, and far too many silent TDs on O'Donoghue's, Ahern's and other shennanigans, and why NO-ONE is held accountable or fired, and why State and Governmental contracts don't - apparently - allow for someone who hasn't done their job or has royally fvcked up to be fired.

And no, this isn't just a rant against our current cabinet and their sickening behaviour; FG were FAR too silent in relation to O'Donoghue's expenses, and in doing that they have almost ruled themselves out of consideration for my vote whenever the next election arrives.

Scofflaw

The Greens made promises to people before the last election, and reneged immediately.

Or, on the other hand, you could point out that they made manifesto statements, then negotiated a coalition agreement that didn't contain every single one of those commitments, and never could have done.

People who expect a minor coalition partner to get its entire manifesto into the programme for government are being utterly unrealistic. Of course, when it comes to the Greens, it was probably a good thing in some ways...

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

By all means lets have local TD's for local issues

Most other places rely on local Councillors to deal with local issues. That way, local Government manages local affairs.

We, on the other hand, have a very centralised central Government and an essentially powerless local Government. Central Government, as a result gets swamped with local issues, which distract from issues it should focus on. Local Government meanwhile is largely impotent which feeds a dangerous combination amongst the public of powerlessness (as people can't effect change in their localities) and dependency (people's concerns hang on the whim of some civil servant and/or politican in central Government).

As such, our problem is in many ways a structural one - and, even if you could elect 'perfect politicans', unless you tackle the structures, a large amount of time and energy will be wasted as a result.

PS I'd rate our politicans and parties as being no worse than most in other countries. They are far from perfect but political reform will only come about as a result of sustained public pressure.

SLUSK

Ireland would probably be better of in a dictatorship like in the United Arab Emirates, they seem to do alright. Sometimes a dictatorship is superior to democracy.

djpbarry

SLUSK wrote: »

Ireland would probably be better of in a dictatorship like in the United Arab Emirates, they seem to do alright.

I presume "they" refers to the royalty and the natives, rather than the imported slave labour?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

I agree with a lot of your points and I agree also with the poster who mentioned the structural issue between local and national government.
But do we get the government we deserve? I would say in fairness we deserve better than what we have been getting. It must remembered that the electorate do not have a blank canvas to paint the perfect Dail from the paint on their election cards. (forgive the colourful puns). The "type" of TDs that get elected reflect the "type" of candidates on the ballot paper.
Eg. If you want less publicans in the Dail you need less publicans on the ballot paper.
The type of people on the ballot paper depend on the 19th century selection processes in the political party (particularly FF/FG). Who do you know? Which candidate is most agressive?
Who can work (male and female) family unfriendly 14 hour days in a country with poor childcare policies (most of it spent on public appearances for re-election and unnecessary admin work)?
Who can afford it? (job security after term finished).

So there may be a reason why we get the TDs we get that is not entirely our fault.

Will the politicians change this? Do Turkeys vote for Xmas?

There is European pressure at the moment to have the representation of females in the European parliament increased. Consequently national parliaments are also in the spotlight and the light is on Irelands shocking figure which has never exceeded 14% (More publicans than women in Dail)


The only way a country can raise a figure so low is by a mandatory quota system (on female candidates). This has been confirmed by an Oireachtas commitee. To achieve this quota some tactics might be:

Improve the selection process in Political Parties.
Improve family friendliness of TD's job:
limit allowed time for public appearances
have centralised admin resources for TDs
standardised working day
improve national childcare
create flexi-time ethos in professions where this does not cause problems.
Legislation to guarantee Job security for elected TDs.
Stop the practice of parties using family names just to gain election (for men at least)

These changes would ofcourse open up politics to a much wider pool and range of professions of men also and thus improve the overall standard and range of experience in the Dail.

This may not sit well with people who dont like positive discrimination but without this the dearth of talent will continue.

The structural changes suggested by View would greatly contribute to the amount of parliamentarians in the Dail and effective local politicians in the councils.

Sleepy

Did we not successfully get the idea through to you the last time you proposed that sexist nonsense that Ireland shouldn't be imposing quotas just so Ms. Bacik can get ellected?

I agree that changes in party selection criteria would be a good thing but discrimination is discrimination is discrimination and while you and that Labour harridan who nobody wants to see in any position of authority may be in favour of it, that position weakens any sensible ones you may have alongside it.

T runner

Sleepy wrote: »

Did we not successfully get the idea through to you the last time you proposed that sexist nonsense that Ireland shouldn't be imposing quotas just so Ms. Bacik can get ellected?

I agree that changes in party selection criteria would be a good thing but discrimination is discrimination is discrimination and while you and that Labour harridan who nobody wants to see in any position of authority may be in favour of it, that position weakens any sensible ones you may have alongside it.

Good points. Thanks

Sleepy

I'd like to see a system put in place whereby one must achieve some certification prior to being put forth for election. In order to work as a Financial Advisor it's necessary to get your QFA so why shouldn't it be necessary to have a qualification in at least basic economics, the structures of the different departments, constitutional law etc. before becoming a member of parliament? I'm not necessarily suggesting a full-time degree level qualification but a qualification that could be completed part-time via evening courses before one is elligible for election.

T runner

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd like to see a system put in place whereby one must achieve some certification prior to being put forth for election. In order to work as a Financial Advisor it's necessary to get your QFA so why shouldn't it be necessary to have a qualification in at least basic economics, the structures of the different departments, constitutional law etc. before becoming a member of parliament? I'm not necessarily suggesting a full-time degree level qualification but a qualification that could be completed part-time via evening courses before one is elligible for election.

Not realistic. Turkeys wont vote for Christmas.

Cork Boy

That's discrimination that is.

What about the time poor, blind, money poor, deaf, single parents, people living far from cities?

I think the poster who said there has to be a limit on public appearances is a great idea. Even Haughy as Chief wasn't in front of a mic/camera for half the time as some of our Ministers and back-benchers.

Mandatory quotas are not a good idea. It should be soley based on merit. I also disagree with the quota's in South Africa Rugby, politics have no place in sport.

But going back to the OP, that was a fantastic post (i'm sure we could all nitpick it to death as is a boards poster's wont) sir, keep up the good work!

And lastly, we need devolution of power to our local authorities big time! Legislatures should not be responsible for fixing our potholes!

Ok, i could go on but works nearly over (wohoooo!) so over and out - have a good weekend all.

Sleepy

T runner wrote: »

Not realistic. Turkeys wont vote for Christmas.

But they will vote to discriminate against themselves? Yes Pot?

Though I'd rather see half the incumbants fail the qualification and make themselves inelligible,it could be introduced for all first time candidates. Not ideal but it should improve the next generation of politicians.

Well, I think if we reduced the salaries, pensions, benefits etc that politicians receive we'd probably see a lot less career politicians, and more of the sort that want to help the country. As it is, politicians receive more in salary and benefits than most normal working people (before and during the economic situation), and thats hardly representing the nation. Tone things down. We're not the US. We're not the UK. We don't have an economy that warrants such expenditure on these types of government positions. Its all well and good to give a good image of the country, but don't be stupid about it.

In addition to Sleepy's comment about the needed skills, which I do think should be a requirement, I'd also like to see some sort of responsibility brought in. They're being voted in to run the country, not Super Value down the road. If they royally cock up, there should be an independent investigation, and possibly charges of negligence or such brought against them. Fines and prison time.

Its likely that the numbers of applicants would drop off in the short term, but at least we'd be getting better qualified and responsible individuals for the jobs..

freewheeler

Slattery86 wrote: »

While I agree with you on the gombeen element in certain sectors of Irish political life, it cannot be overlooked that some people are been incredibly narrow-minded and dismissive of the current cabinet- even in the face of the banking crises and other mishaps. This rationale is just as backward as those who vote for a party because of family or historical reasons, as many people who would dismiss FF (or any political party for that matter) beforehand, will never see to it that a minister of Lenihan's calibre has at least made attempts towards resolving the national crisis.

Same logic works with the greens. Don’t forget that the introduction of the windfall tax and new planning laws is equally down to Green input into government legislation. Likewise FF and the Greens have introduced laws for Local Government reform, probably the first such attempt ever since the formation of the county council structure by Act of Parliament in the 1890’s.

Yes these changes took a long time to come about, and much damage has been done- but it is never too late. Another benefit with FF/ Greens acting in the national and economical interest is that this will have a knock on affect on FG, Labour etc- bringing higher standards into the political system in the future. It works the other way of course, such as back in the 1970s/ 80s when corruption was more excusable in even FG, as they could point fingers at FF as been more corrupt.

Let’s just await the future of Irish politics after the aforementioned reforms. There is no point IN exclaiming these kinds of hypothesis in an OP when they are not strictly true, because Irish society and political society are changing for the better when you take the reform of Local governance and other key aspects of national life into the equation. Even Lenihan and Bruton are putting aside partisan bickering to work towards the national interest, and that can only be a sign of progress.

With all due respects most of what you've said here is rubbish..this is by common consensus the worst 'government' in the history of the state.they have taken the term 'inept' to a whole new level and brought nothing but embarrasment to our country..if they had any decency(even by FF standards) they would have stood down long ago and spared us any more of their pathetic ramblings..can we please have no more FF apologists on here...they have no excuse..their record speaks for itself.:mad:

View

freewheeler wrote: »

With all due respects most of what you've said here is rubbish..this is by common consensus the worst 'government' in the history of the state.they have taken the term 'inept' to a whole new level and brought nothing but embarrasment to our country..

I would think that the FF government of '77-'81 was worse. Their economic policies were based on the premise we had North Sea size oil deposits off our west coast which would be commerically exploitable in the short term. After that starting point came a global oil crisis, high inflation and interest rates in the mid-teens...

T runner

Cork Boy wrote: »

That's discrimination that is.

What about the time poor, blind, money poor, deaf, single parents, people living far from cities?

I think the poster who said there has to be a limit on public appearances is a great idea. Even Haughy as Chief wasn't in front of a mic/camera for half the time as some of our Ministers and back-benchers.

I suggested that, but in your dreams if you think the TDs will change that! Turkeys wont vote for X-mas.

It will happen if you bring in a quota though. Only bring in quotas that are necessary.

Mandatory quotas are not a good idea. It should be soley based on merit. I also disagree with the quota's in South Africa Rugby, politics have no place in sport.

The quotas in Ireland would be 30% quotas for candidacy not for election.
On the discrimination issue if you flicked a coin a hundred times the chances of getting under 30% heads are harps is .01%.
The proportion of women has never exceeded 14%, never. Think about it.
For parties to reach a 30% quota for candidates it needs to make the positive changes like reducing public appearance time.
Nobody likes quotas but its the only way to get the changes.

As I see it nothing will change without a quota. This has proven to be the case in over 80 countries.

And lastly, we need devolution of power to our local authorities big time! Legislatures should not be responsible for fixing our potholes!

Agree 100%

Liam Byrne

T runner wrote: »

It will happen if you bring in a quota though.

The quotas in Ireland would be 30% quotas for candidacy not for election.
On the discrimination issue if you flicked a coin a hundred times the chances of getting under 30% heads are harps is .01%.

The proportion of women has never exceeded 14%, never. Think about it.

For parties to reach a 30% quota for candidates it needs to make the positive changes like reducing public appearance time.

Nobody likes quotas but its the only way to get the changes.

As I see it nothing will change without a quota. This has proven to be the case in over 80 countries.

We've discussed the discrimination of quotas already. Using phrases like "it's the only way" and "nothing will change without a quota" doesn't make it true.

In addition, the recent fiasco of a government has, if anything, proven that we need now more than ever to elect people based on their competence and ethics, not on quotas or dynasties or surnames or locations.

The whole system needs an overhaul to ensure that we don't have any more Haugheys, Aherns, Dempseys, Lenihans, or Harneys, Coughlans, Baciks, etc....all of whom seem to be much more interested in their own personal agendas and lining their own pockets (and those of their mates) rather than representing the people of this country.

So the only "quota" that should be imposed is a quota of zero self-interest.

T runner

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, I think if we reduced the salaries, pensions, benefits etc that politicians receive we'd probably see a lot less career politicians, and more of the sort that want to help the country. As it is, politicians receive more in salary and benefits than most normal working people (before and during the economic situation), and thats hardly representing the nation. Tone things down. We're not the US. We're not the UK. We don't have an economy that warrants such expenditure on these types of government positions. Its all well and good to give a good image of the country, but don't be stupid about it.

In addition to Sleepy's comment about the needed skills, which I do think should be a requirement, I'd also like to see some sort of responsibility brought in. They're being voted in to run the country, not Super Value down the road. If they royally cock up, there should be an independent investigation, and possibly charges of negligence or such brought against them. Fines and prison time.

Its likely that the numbers of applicants would drop off in the short term, but at least we'd be getting better qualified and responsible individuals for the jobs..

Turkeys dont vote for Xmas.

dodgyme

T runner wrote: »

Turkeys dont vote for Xmas.

Turkeys dont vote.:D

Liam Byrne

dodgyme wrote: »

Turkeys dont vote.:D

Maybe we should lobby for a quota of turkeys......I mean, they probably would vote if they were given a chance to be candidates

Sleepy

T runner wrote: »

Turkeys dont vote for Xmas.

I did make a suggestion along these lines for a "turkey party" to run on the single issue of reform of the political system. Get in, enact the necessary legislation to reduce TD numbers, enact strict controls on TD remuneration and pensions (tying the yearly salary to a multiple of - perhaps two times? - the previous years Average Industrial Wage), strict expenses control etc. before disolving their Dail and calling a new General Election under the new system.

If our existing turkeys won't vote for Christmas, maybe people need to vote for turkeys who will.

T runner

Sleepy wrote: »

I did make a suggestion along these lines for a "turkey party" to run on the single issue of reform of the political system. Get in, enact the necessary legislation to reduce TD numbers, enact strict controls on TD remuneration and pensions (tying the yearly salary to a multiple of - perhaps two times? - the previous years Average Industrial Wage), strict expenses control etc. before disolving their Dail and calling a new General Election under the new system.

If our existing turkeys won't vote for Christmas, maybe people need to vote for turkeys who will.

How many of these new party candidates do you expect to be elected?
Do you think they will be able to outvote the Turkeys?
Will they be able to leave their jobs for 5 years? If they are Publicans ofcourse this would make it easier. They will have to work 14 hour days and go to meetings at family unfriendly times so no women or family men.
What does that leave you with? (Turkeys).
Do you understand to get as far as the Dail you have to be a Turkey.

There are several things that need to change to accomplish a system where candidtaes are top notch and from a wide pool of people.

Do you think the Turkeys will vote all these changes in?

They may vote in a quota system because of pressure from outside and unwittingly these changes will have to be made on the ground. That means not just that politics is open to a higher preportion of women: but to a larger pool of men who are into politics for the right reasons.

There is a realistic chance of quotas being voted in.

The question is are people willing to put of with a positive discrimination to
enable these changes to happen which may affect only a tiny amount of candidates if any?
Or do they prefer to keep the negative discrimination we have now with less than 13% TDs female, 22% publicans and many TDs fitting the description of Turkey. How many potential talented genuine candidates (men and women) are being discriminated against to allow the perrenial Turkey farm that is the dail rule the roost?

dvpower

Ireland would probably be better of in a dictatorship like in the United Arab Emirates, they seem to do alright. Sometimes a dictatorship is superior to democracy.

donegalfella wrote: »

Saudi Arabia is a great place, unless you happen to be female, homosexual, Christian, Jewish, atheist, secularist, Shiite, or an insufficiently devout Sunni. Why don't you move over there and let us know how you get on?

UAE != Saudi Arabia (by a long way)
Its not a dictatorship either (although I'd still prefer our flawed system to theirs)

Liam Byrne

T runner wrote: »

The question is are people willing to put of with a positive discrimination to
enable these changes to happen which may affect only a tiny amount of candidates if any?
Or do they prefer to keep the negative discrimination we have now with less than 13% TDs female, 22% publicans and many TDs fitting the description of Turkey.

Neither. Some of us want ZERO discrimination.

T runner wrote: »

How many potential talented genuine candidates (men and women) are being discriminated against to allow the perrenial Turkey farm that is the dail rule the roost?

How many more would be discriminated against if the seat was taken by someone less qualified in order to fill a quota ?

Anyways, this is miles off-topic. The fact is that some people get the politicians they deserve (because they voted for them) and the rest of us have to suffer the consequences.

That said, despite the fallacy being touted by FF supporters that FG could somehow be worse (not possible, IMHO) there is a major issue because "the other crowd are obviously going to be better than ****e / corrupt" is not good enough.

Sleepy

T runner wrote: »

How many of these new party candidates do you expect to be elected?
Do you think they will be able to outvote the Turkeys?
Will they be able to leave their jobs for 5 years? If they are Publicans ofcourse this would make it easier. They will have to work 14 hour days and go to meetings at family unfriendly times so no women or family men.
What does that leave you with? (Turkeys).
Do you understand to get as far as the Dail you have to be a Turkey.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the Irish electorate isn't smart enough to vote for such a party.
They wouldn't need to leave their jobs for 5 years, the legislation could be drafted prior to the election and the dail disolved once it's passed. It's the entire idea of the 'party' - to enact the change the turkeys wouldn't and then get out. A subsequent reversing of the legislation would lead to public outrage had the electorate voted in this short-term government in an attempt to fix the system.

There are several things that need to change to accomplish a system where candidtaes are top notch and from a wide pool of people.

Do you think the Turkeys will vote all these changes in?

They may vote in a quota system because of pressure from outside and unwittingly these changes will have to be made on the ground. That means not just that politics is open to a higher preportion of women: but to a larger pool of men who are into politics for the right reasons.

There is a realistic chance of quotas being voted in.

I'd say that chance is about as realistic as Ivana Bacik getting fairly elected in this country tbh.

The question is are people willing to put of with a positive discrimination to enable these changes to happen which may affect only a tiny amount of candidates if any?
Or do they prefer to keep the negative discrimination we have now with less than 13% TDs female, 22% publicans and many TDs fitting the description of Turkey. How many potential talented genuine candidates (men and women) are being discriminated against to allow the perrenial Turkey farm that is the dail rule the roost?

Nope, I'm not prepared to put up with discrimination of any kind. The discrimination you perceive to be there at present is only there in your head tbh and *all* discrimination is negative - not just the discrimination which goes against you.

Very few people would be financially damaged by a term in the Dail given the high salary attached to the job and the pension entitlements after leaving. I can't think of a single person who wouldn't enter politics due to "low salarys", most I know wouldn't get involved because of the company they'd be forced to keep or the unlikelihood of actually making a difference - e.g. the unlikelihood of a 'turkey party' being elected in a country where FF have a virtual guarantee of 28% of the vote.

Now the next statement I'm going to make will probably enrage you but it's cold hard fact: ceterus paribus, someone who can work 70 hours a week will give you better results than someone who can only work 35 due to their desire to spend time with their children. Look at the most successful people in the world and what do they have in commmon? They work long hours. The most wealthy individual I know personally works 60 hours a week and considers that short compared to what he did early in his career. Pierre Omidyar, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Michael O' Leary et al all still work crazy hours or worked them for the years they were getting their business off the ground. The average employee in eBay during their start-up days worked 18 - 20 hours days!

You may say that this discriminates against those who've chosen to have children but preventing these people from working long hours discriminates them because they've chosen not to have children or have made a decision with a partner that they'll work long hours whilst the partner minds the kids etc.

rcecil

Martin McGuinness and others like Bairbre DeBrun, Pearse Doherty. Toiresa Ferris and Aengus O'Snoddaigh can be held up to show that Sinn Fein is ready for government and do a good job.

Shinners work for a basic industrial wage and with few perks
Support solid inititiatives that benefit the majority
Support Green policies
Are welcomed by human rights supporters all over the world
Do not cross picket lines

Believe in punishing the banksters and developers that destroyed the economy not the lower classes just getting by.

Liam Byrne

rcecil wrote: »

Support solid inititiatives that benefit the majority

I thought they used to OBJECT to this and claim they were supporting minorities / the underdogs ?

rcecil wrote: »

Believe in punishing the banksters and developers that destroyed the economy not the lower classes just getting by.

That'd be great if it were true, but they've been known to punish people for doing nothing more than disagreeing with them.

And as for their taxi services......I mean, not even Ahern would have the neck to collect Ray Burke from prison.

T runner

Sleepy wrote: »

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the Irish electorate isn't smart enough to vote for such a party.

Irish electorate is smarter than you think. Unfortunately they ahve only Turkeys to vote for. Remember the irish electorate includes yourself and all the posters on this site.

They wouldn't need to leave their jobs for 5 years, the legislation could be drafted prior to the election and the dail disolved once it's passed.

But who will get the legislation considered and passed? If the legislation is considered and passed before they are elected then they are unnnecessary?

It's the entire idea of the 'party' - to enact the change the turkeys wouldn't and then get out. A subsequent reversing of the legislation would lead to public outrage had the electorate voted in this short-term government in an attempt to fix the system.

Government? You think this single issue party would be elected as the Government? (overall majority). Im not surprised you think the Irish electorate wouldnt vote them in. They are too smart!

I'd say that chance is about as realistic as Ivana Bacik getting fairly elected in this country tbh.

Can youi substantiate that? This change has been made in 80+ countries with success. Its real enough in these places. Ireland has less than 14% females, a perfect candidate.
What has Ivans Bacik got to do with anything. 80 countries around the world have used it to progress themselves. But you discount that because someone you dont like advocates it. Absoulutely ridiculous non-argument!

BTW Ivand Bacik getting "fairly elected". So if she does get elected it will be "unfair"? That is biased.

Nope, I'm not prepared to put up with discrimination of any kind.

You are accepting a Dail with 13% women and 22% publicans. Why have you "put up" with this discrimination all these years?

The discrimination you perceive to be there at present is only there in your head tbh and *all* discrimination is negative - not just the discrimination which goes against you.

And what discrimination has gone against me?

Very few people would be financially damaged by a term in the Dail given the high salary attached to the job and the pension entitlements after leaving. I can't think of a single person who wouldn't enter politics due to "low salarys", most I know wouldn't get involved because of the company they'd be forced to keep or the unlikelihood of actually making a difference - e.g. the unlikelihood of a 'turkey party' being elected in a country where FF have a virtual guarantee of 28% of the vote.

Dont forget the other party with Turkey selection policies FG and also all the unofficial barriers to being a candidate/Councillor/TD which means mostly Turkeys do it.

Now the next statement I'm going to make will probably enrage you but it's cold hard fact: ceterus paribus, someone who can work 70 hours a week will give you better results than someone who can only work 35 due to their desire to spend time with their children.

The 70 hour a week TDs spent half their time wasted on public appearances and unnecessarty admin work. Only 35 hours is spent on their actual job. Are you defending the turkeys now?

A weekly concentrated 50 hours a week on good old public service work would be an increase for everyone and make the job more accessible to talented men and women.