Ciara Conway

sparkling sea

katydid wrote: »

Discrimination is never right, no matter what the purpose. If women want to be candidates for election, and get into the tough world of politics, they have to have the cojones to fight the old boy's network.

And thats what they appear to have done, hence gender quotas. Organisation like NWCI and 50:50 have pushed for this change and now they've got it, it didn't come from nowhere.

ROCKMAN

Running high numbers of the wrong female candidates just to make the quota's would be more damaging in the long run then anything IMHO.

sparkling sea

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Running high numbers of the wrong female candidates just to make the quota's would be more damaging in the long run then anything IMHO.

Why is that ?

Most of our politicans and political representative haven't got to where they are on their own merit, its a nonsense to pretend its what you know, we all know its who you know and usually what gender you are. Many politicans have proved themselves unable, many are even useless. How can it be more damaging to have useless women rather than useless men.

More competition usually leads to higher standards not lower ones, there are many, more than capable women out there, who will never get there chance because of the system that used to exist. Gender quotas will only bring about change and it can't be any worse than it is now.

katydid

sparkling sea wrote: »

Why is that ?

Most of our politicans and political representative haven't got to where they are on their own merit, its a nonsense to pretend its what you know, we all know its who you know and usually what gender you are. Many politicans have proved themselves unable, many are even useless. How can it be more damaging to have useless women rather than useless men.

More competition usually leads to higher standards not lower ones, there are many, more than capable women out there, who will never get there chance because of the system that used to exist. Gender quotas will only bring about change and it can't be any worse than it is now.

So just because things are bad, we should make them equally bad by discriminating. Hmm...

katydid

sparkling sea wrote: »

And thats what they appear to have done, hence gender quotas. Organisation like NWCI and 50:50 have pushed for this change and now they've got it, it didn't come from nowhere.

I don't mean fighting to get preferential treatment. I meant refuse to allow the old boy's network to intimidate them. Sure there are people who don't want to do that, and just bypass the hard slog. But that's not fair on anyone.

ROCKMAN

sparkling sea wrote: »

Why is that ?

Most of our politicans and political representative haven't got to where they are on their own merit, its a nonsense to pretend its what you know, we all know its who you know and usually what gender you are. Many politicans have proved themselves unable, many are even useless. How can it be more damaging to have useless women rather than useless men.

More competition usually leads to higher standards not lower ones, there are many, more than capable women out there, who will never get there chance because of the system that used to exist. Gender quotas will only bring about change and it can't be any worse than it is now.

Yes I agree with you that the current political representatives have not set the bar to any great level or standard but my point is that the quota system may see many ideal candidates not been selected because a party has reached or needs to reach its quota.
Also lets be fair and say that in the future its very likely that we could see many very capable men never get a fair chance due to this new system. Which would be as equally as wrong as the current system.

sparkling sea

There is no suggestion of men not being on a ticket, this purely relates to parties and the balancing of selection, men can still have 70% of the ticket, its some great woman that have been over looked, the great men, the few that there are, will still have an advantage over women - come on reality check here please, its a balancing not like the landslide that we have been used too.
It is sad that we have progressed so little over the last 40 years and the need for gender quotas has arisen.

That said, many many countries have selected the gender quota option as away of parachuting women, into the hierarchy of political organisations and committees and it has achieved its intended purpose. This has also changed the face of politcal representation in many countries, IMO this can only ever be a positive change, even if the bar hasn't risen in any other way.

Many want the political parties and the goverment to be reflective of (at the very least) both genders in soicety, this will at long long last, go some way to normalising and reflecting that much hoped reality, that both our daughters and our sons see politics as a gender nutural and not a male only domain. The saying "Its a mans game" will hopeful soon be dead in the water and I think gender quotas will get us there much faster than pointless power struggles. Why fight the old boys network when you can make it obselete, why waste energy on an outdated and over-rated group of people,

fiachr_a

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Running high numbers of the wrong female candidates just to make the quota's would be more damaging in the long run then anything IMHO.

Just like the high number of women teachers in our schools!

katydid

sparkling sea wrote: »

There is no suggestion of men not being on a ticket, this purely relates to parties and the balancing of selection, men can still have 70% of the ticket, its some great woman that have been over looked, the great men, the few that there are, will still have an advantage over women - come on reality check here please, its a balancing not like the landslide that we have been used too.
It is sad that we have progressed so little over the last 40 years and the need for gender quotas has arisen.

That said, many many countries have selected the gender quota option as away of parachuting women, into the hierarchy of political organisations and committees and it has achieved its intended purpose. This has also changed the face of politcal representation in many countries, IMO this can only ever be a positive change, even if the bar hasn't risen in any other way.

Many want the political parties and the goverment to be reflective of (at the very least) both genders in soicety, this will at long long last, go some way to normalising and reflecting that much hoped reality, that both our daughters and our sons see politics as a gender nutural and not a male only domain. The saying "Its a mans game" will hopeful soon be dead in the water and I think gender quotas will get us there much faster than pointless power struggles. Why fight the old boys network when you can make it obselete, why waste energy on an outdated and over-rated group of people,

The percentage of men on the ticket will depend on what percentage of women the various parties decide to put on.

Of course it would be good if our parliament was reflective of society, but women form half of the population and if they want that, they can and should run for office and try to redress the balance.

As I said, achieving a positive change by doing something unethical is not a good idea. The end doesn't justify the means if you are going to try to achieve this by discriminating

katydid

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Also lets be fair and say that in the future its very likely that we could see many very capable men never get a fair chance due to this new system. Which would be as equally as wrong as the current system.

It would actually be worse, as at present there is no real barrier for women who are determined. If you want to be in politics, you have to have a hard neck.

efb

Our 2 best presidents were female TBf

ROCKMAN

fiachr_a wrote: »

Just like the high number of women teachers in our schools!

Think you missed the word WRONG when you read my post.

sparkling sea

katydid wrote: »

It would actually be worse, as at present there is no real barrier for women who are determined. If you want to be in politics, you have to have a hard neck.

All things being equal, no it wouldn't be worse because at the very least our political elite would be gender reflective, that can only be a good thing.

You may need a hard neck, but what you don't need is the bias that has existed towards men for far too long and/or to be like the majority of politicians we have and have had, up till now. That's not to say most female candidates we have had and have or any better

But there is a barrier, women can't get on the ticket because of the bias that exists towards female candidates within the selection committees, this has proved not to be the case with the electorate - the article I posted earlier - have we forgotten the figures so quickly??

This is like going round in circles, probably a reason why so little progress has been made!!

sparkling sea

katydid wrote: »

.
As I said, achieving a positive change by doing something unethical is not a good idea. The end doesn't justify the means if you are going to try to achieve this by discriminating

Its discrimination that has got us to where we are now, I don't doubt this is the is just redressing the balance. Your rights is bad that a mechanism like this one is need, but unfortunately needed it is for a multitude of reasons. Virtually all of these reasons for lack of female participation in politics in Ireland, are linked to the tradition of paternalism and sexism in both the male and female psyche.

katydid

sparkling sea wrote: »

All things being equal, no it wouldn't be worse because at the very least our political elite would be gender reflective, that can only be a good thing.

You may need a hard neck, but what you don't need is the bias that has existed towards men for far too long and/or to be like the majority of politicians we have and have had, up till now. That's not to say most female candidates we have had and have or any better

But there is a barrier, women can't get on the ticket because of the bias that exists towards female candidates within the selection committees, this has proved not to be the case with the electorate - the article I posted earlier - have we forgotten the figures so quickly??

This is like going round in circles, probably a reason why so little progress has been made!!

The figures are irrelevant; the fact is that however wrong a situation may be, it isn't ethically right to try to rectify it by doing something equally wrong.

Yes, there are barriers, and yes, they have to be overcome. But they have to be overcome by fair means, not foul. By the same way as they are in other parts of society, by women insisting on being treated equally, and questioning why they aren't, if they feel they are not. They have to take the selection committee on, just like women in other parts of society take on interview panels and other areas where discrimination can occur.

katydid

sparkling sea wrote: »

Its discrimination that has got us to where we are now, I don't doubt this is the is just redressing the balance. Your rights is bad that a mechanism like this one is need, but unfortunately needed it is for a multitude of reasons. Virtually all of these reasons for lack of female participation in politics in Ireland, are linked to the tradition of paternalism and sexism in both the male and female psyche.

So fight paternalism and sexism. Take them on and challenge them.

fricatus

Seems like Ciara Conway is going to vote against her party on Clare Daly's fatal foetal abnormalities bill:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/exclusive-labour-poised-to-lose-at-least-two-tds-over-abortion-bill-30980327.html

Not sure what to make of this. It certainly puts her in the "free vote on matters of conscience" camp, which I am in favour of. The cynic in me sees it as a ploy to hold onto her seat in the coming election though, since we know which way the wind is blowing for Labour.

It also makes me wonder why she wouldn't vote against the government on the downgrading of our hospital, the closure of our VEC office, the abolition of our city council, the failure to fund palliative care at UHW, etc. Clearly this issue is more important to her than Waterford's role as a regional service centre.

Max Powers

fricatus wrote: »

Seems like Ciara Conway is going to vote against her party on Clare Daly's fatal foetal abnormalities bill:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/exclusive-labour-poised-to-lose-at-least-two-tds-over-abortion-bill-30980327.html

Not sure what to make of this. It certainly puts her in the "free vote on matters of conscience" camp, which I am in favour of. The cynic in me sees it as a ploy to hold onto her seat in the coming election though, since we know which way the wind is blowing for Labour.

It also makes me wonder why she wouldn't vote against the government on the downgrading of our hospital, the closure of our VEC office, the abolition of our city council, the failure to fund palliative care at UHW, etc. Clearly this issue is more important to her than Waterford's role as a regional service centre.

she has been strong on abortion rights before and you are right about the VEC, UHW etc etc...no where to be seen... except smiling outside talk talk or talking about Demi Moore on TV, pathetic, i cant imagine it would sway anyones opinion on her unless abortion is your top issue over economy, jobs, investment, healthcare etc etc
on saying that, at least she is standing up for one thing she believes in and she deserves a smidgen (just a smidgen) of credit because there is a heap of em there too scared to do it.

efb

She's a national TD abortion is a national issue

fricatus

efb wrote: »

She's a national TD abortion is a national issue

So she should just neglect her constituency? She won't be a national TD for very long in that case.

The fact is that this country doesn't have "national" TDs/MPs because we don't have a national list system. Each one is also a representative of their constituency.

I recognise the difficulty they have in trying to straddle two horses all the time like this, but the unfortunate truth is that TDs are also advocates for their constituency, and if the likes of Ciara Conway and John Deasy are not advocates for Waterford at national level, then there is nobody who will be.

efb

fricatus wrote: »

So she should just neglect her constituency? She won't be a national TD for very long in that case.

The fact is that this country doesn't have "national" TDs/MPs because we don't have a national list system. Each one is also a representative of their constituency.

I recognise the difficulty they have in trying to straddle two horses all the time like this, but the unfortunate truth is that TDs are also advocates for their constituency, and if the likes of Ciara Conway and John Deasy are not advocates for Waterford at national level, then there is nobody who will be.

Where did I say that? You have to remember two members of cabinet are in Wexford. Ciara does not sit at cabinet

wagtail99

It seems that Ciara Conway went missing during the "Medical Treatment (Termination of Pregnancy in Case of Risk to Life of Pregnant Woman) Bill 2012", I see that John Halligan supported it.

leduke

in the end she voted with the government!

Taxburden carrier

:eek:

leduke wrote: »

in the end she voted with the government!

jimbo1979

She sitting on the fence till the last second today on the vote.she wants her head to remain in the trough and take all her salary and expenses before riding off into the sunset.shame on her.has to be the worst politician in Waterford's history

Taxburden carrier

jimbo1979 wrote: »

She sitting on the fence till the last second today on the vote.she wants her head to remain in the trough and take all her salary and expenses before riding off into the sunset.shame on her.has to be the worst politician in Waterford's history

Let's not go nuts here

Poor Uncle Tom

Taxburden carrier wrote: »

Let's not go nuts here

In fairness, that's what it looks like. She does a lot of talking but says very little....

efb

jimbo1979 wrote: »

She sitting on the fence till the last second today on the vote.she wants her head to remain in the trough and take all her salary and expenses before riding off into the sunset.shame on her.has to be the worst politician in Waterford's history

Cullen? Those voting machines.. Him and the sore back...

7upfree

efb wrote: »

Cullen? Those voting machines.. Him and the sore back...

Cullen actually did stuff. And got stuff. And we had a say at the cabinet table.

He inherited the voting machines.

She and the present incumbents would appear to be the worst performing politicians in a very long time.

7upfree

Did the Shinners abstain?