We get the politicians we deserve.

Mr. Incognito · 07-01-2010 10:55PM #1

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 · 07-01-2010 11:35PM

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 · 08-01-2010 12:07AM

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 · 08-01-2010 01:22AM

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 · 08-01-2010 02:30AM

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 · 08-01-2010 07:49AM

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 · 08-01-2010 10:42AM

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 · 08-01-2010 10:59AM

This post has been deleted.

T runner · 08-01-2010 11:54AM

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 · 08-01-2010 12:52PM

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 · 08-01-2010 02:53PM

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 · 08-01-2010 03:47PM

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 · 08-01-2010 05:11PM

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 · 08-01-2010 05:25PM

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 · 08-01-2010 05:39PM

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.

08-01-2010 06:27PM

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 · 09-01-2010 12:41PM

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 · 09-01-2010 11:58PM

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 · 10-01-2010 09:00PM

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 · 10-01-2010 09:08PM

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 · 10-01-2010 11:01PM

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 · 11-01-2010 12:12AM

T runner wrote: »

Turkeys dont vote for Xmas.

Turkeys dont vote.:D

Liam Byrne · 11-01-2010 10:13AM

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 · 11-01-2010 11:33AM

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 · 11-01-2010 12:28PM

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 · 11-01-2010 12:37PM

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 · 11-01-2010 12:46PM

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 · 11-01-2010 12:49PM

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 · 11-01-2010 12:51PM

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 · 11-01-2010 12:53PM

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 · 11-01-2010 01:13PM

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.

T runner · 11-01-2010 01:24PM

dodgyme wrote: »

Turkeys dont vote.:D

Except when they are used as a metaphor for TDs. What would you give yourself for that joke?

Sleepy · 11-01-2010 01:34PM

T runner wrote: »

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.

I think you give them too much credit as half those elected to the Dail could not have been the best candidates in their region. We'll have to agree to disagree.

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

That's why I used the word 'draft'. Prepare the legislation - show it to the electorate as the party's manifesto - Pass the legislation - Call a new General Election - Disband the party.

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!

See above. If done correctly, this could be a 'government' of a few days. The country currently survives without a Dail for nearly half the year as it stands, a few days before the election of a new government under a system designed to improve electoral results and governmetn performance couldn't hurt imho.

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

As dumb as I think they are, I still can't see the electorate giving that idiot a seat unless they're forced to do so by some form of feminazi quota requirement. The woman is a misandrist and no man, or sane woman, would ever vote for her.

But if you are happy

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.

I'm more than happy to discuss measures to improve the quality of candidates putting themselves forward for selection. Selection policies should be dealt with internally by each party imho. I wouldn't see anything wrong with a new misandrist party headed by Ms Bacik refusing to put men forward for election. Nobody sane would vote for them but they should have the right to run candidates if they want to imho.

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.

Not defending them, just questioning the rational behind your call for these quotas and making public life more 'family friendly'.

That the current TD's waste half their time does not counter the argument that the highest achievers in business tend to be those prepared to put in the long hours.

If I have the choice between two women of reasonably similar capability and policies, one of whom is childless and prepared to work 70 hours a week as a TD and another who can "only" manage 50 hours a week because of her duties as a mother, I'm going to take the one who's going to work those 70 hours a week. She automatically has a 40% higher chance of getting her electoral promises met since she's on the job that much longer.

Obviously, if the first candidate is 50% better than the second, I'll take her despite the shorter hours but you can't discriminate against someone by stopping them from working hard so that others can catch up imho.

T runner · 11-01-2010 03:02PM

Sleepy wrote: »

I think you give them too much credit as half those elected to the Dail could not have been the best candidates in their region. We'll have to agree to disagree.

How do you know they couldnt have been? You dont know.

That's why I used the word 'draft'. Prepare the legislation - show it to the electorate as the party's manifesto - Pass the legislation - Call a new General Election - Disband the party.

Sorry you need to do more than show it to the electorate to get it passed.
You have to be in the dail and put the legisltion before the Dail and hope a majority of TDs pass it. How do they do that if they are not in power?

See above. If done correctly, this could be a 'government' of a few days.

What!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you crazy? You think your party will get a overall majority?

As dumb as I think they are, I still can't see the electorate giving that idiot a seat unless they're forced to do so by some form of feminazi quota requirement.

Stop being ridiculous please

The woman is a misandrist and no man, or sane woman, would ever vote for her.

Have you any evidence to back up that outrageous fallacious and insulting bar the fact that she supports quotas. I support quotas, am I a misandrist. Governments of 80 countries have brought in quotas are they all misandrists.

The only person with a problem with hatred seems to be you as fas as i can see.

I'm more than happy to discuss measures to improve the quality of candidates putting themselves forward for selection. Selection policies should be dealt with internally by each party imho.

I agree and when legislation comes in to stop them selecting Turkeys they can change the policies themselves. The only realistic chance

I wouldn't see anything wrong with a new misandrist party headed by Ms Bacik refusing to put men forward for election.

What are you on about? I thought she is a member of teh Labour party. Have you heard that she is forming misandrist party for women only?

Agaon you digress to attack Ms Bacik. If not then please stop your strange attacks on her, they are bileful and distasteful. Keep your hatred to yourself stick to the issues here.

Nobody sane would vote for them but they should have the right to run candidates if they want to imho.

They dont exist. Its insane of you to continue with these weird attacks!

Not defending them, just questioning the rational behind your call for these quotas and making public life more 'family friendly'.

Ive explained my rational in detail in my first post on this thread, which you repied to with anopther starnge hateful attack on Ms Bacik for some reason.
If you now want to reply to that in a ratyional manner-feel free.

That the current TD's waste half their time does not counter the argument that the highest achievers in business tend to be those prepared to put in the long hours.

A woman or man doing 50 hours concentrated hard work a week, is more productive than a woman or man putting in 70 half of which half is wasted.

If I have the choice between two women of reasonably similar capability and policies, one of whom is childless and prepared to work 70 hours a week as a TD and another who can "only" manage 50 hours a week because of her duties as a mother,

Yes and both of these would be an improvemnet on the current situation where TDs only do F All real work in the week. Dont you agree?

I'm going to take the one who's going to work those 70 hours a week. She automatically has a 40% higher chance of getting her electoral promises met since she's on the job that much longer.

Your not getting it. The woman who works 50 hours a weeks on only public rep work. Or the man who works 70 hours 35 hours what he should be doing and 35 hours trying to get re-elected?

These 70 hour hard weeks dont exist. Stop defending teh Turkeys.

but you can't discriminate against someone by stopping them from working hard so that others can catch up imho.

Youll find that the 70 hour weeks will mysteriously disappear once the public appearance time disappears.

You think the current Turkeys are working ahrd do you? They only work 35 hour weeks, the rest of the time is public appearances and functions. They are not working hard 70 hours a week.

TDs days should be set hours: except for genuine emergencies. And A Set monthly time for public appearances.

Sleepy · 11-01-2010 03:24PM

T runner wrote: »

How do you know they couldnt have been? You dont know.

One name: Jackie Healy Rae. Do you really think there was no-one more capable in his constituency? Really?

Sorry you need to do more than show it to the electorate to get it passed.

You have to be in the dail and put the legisltion before the Dail and hope a majority of TDs pass it. How do they do that if they are not in power?

What!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you crazy? You think your party will get a overall majority?

TBH, no I don't. It's a flight of whimsy, a mechanism by which we could fix this country by peaceful means. The only other option I can see involves mass murder.

Stop being ridiculous please

Have you any evidence to back up that outrageous fallacious and insulting bar the fact that she supports quotas. I support quotas, am I a misandrist. Governments of 80 countries have brought in quotas are they all misandrists.

The only person with a problem with hatred seems to be you as fas as i can see.

Supporting discrimination against men is misandry.

I've rarely seen Bacik's name attached to anything that wasn't advocating placing men's interests behind those of women's. She's one of those misguided feminists who seem to believe that equality is a zero - sum game.

I agree and when legislation comes in to stop them selecting Turkeys they can change the policies themselves. The only realistic chance

I'm not saying I like the vast majority of candidates the parties are putting forward any more than you are but that's an oxymoron. If legislation is put in place to stop them choosing candidates you don't like, they're not free to choose who they want to run.

A woman or man doing 50 hours concentrated hard work a week, is more productive than a woman or man putting in 70 half of which half is wasted.

I didn't disagree.

Yes and both of these would be an improvemnet on the current situation where TDs only do F All real work in the week. Dont you agree?

Your not getting it. The woman who works 50 hours a weeks on only public rep work. Or the man who works 70 hours 35 hours what he should be doing and 35 hours trying to get re-elected?

These 70 hour hard weeks dont exist. Stop defending teh Turkeys.

Youll find that the 70 hour weeks will mysteriously disappear once the public appearance time disappears.

You think the current Turkeys are working ahrd do you? They only work 35 hour weeks, the rest of the time is public appearances and functions. They are not working hard 70 hours a week.

TDs days should be set hours: except for genuine emergencies. And A Set monthly time for public appearances.

For the love of the flying spaghetti monster, read my posts rather than just looking at bits of them you can attack.

Why should a TD's day be set hours? They're the equivalent of senior executives of a company. Any director of a real business works long, hard hours.

What you seem to be suggesting is that we artificially limit the amount of work a highly paid employee of the state can work in order to allow people who don't want to have to make the necessary sacrifices to do that job have a chance of doing it.

Nowhere did I disagree with you that the time TD's spend on public appearances, functions or envelope openings should be reduced and that time spent on actually running their departments. If anything it seems that my views on this are more extreme than yours in that you'd be happy with a TD working for 50 hours a week whereas I'd rather they worked the same sort of hours as the corporate CEO's they bench-marked their salaries to.

cm2000 · 11-01-2010 04:08PM

Of course we get the politicians we deserve.

We can all say it made absolutely no sense to inflate a property boom. However, we all voted for that. We voted to inflate the property boom by urging lower taxes in income and stamp duty at a time when regular and property inflation was extraordinarily high. When you have no control over monetary policy you must use fiscal policy to stabilize prices. Therefore, when we have high inflation we should raise taxes or cut spending radically.

The problem is that if that was the manifesto of any party at the general election, if they're slogan was "we'll raise your income tax and stamp duty, and not expand services but simply keep the money in reserve" they would not have gotten election.

Any party who rants against Fianna Fáil for their conduct should indeed look in a mirror. They criticise their policy yet at the last election they all pretty much adopted their policies. Labour were now for low taxes, as were Fine Gael and pretty much everyone.

Had any of these manifestos been implemented they would have had the same effect. And furthermore, they were completely up front about them. We all knew the policies. There was little or no deception. This is why we deserve what we get.

If anyone has a problem with government, or with the sheepish nature of the opposition then run for an election, create a party with a new manifesto and then see how you do.

T runner · 11-01-2010 04:52PM

Sleepy wrote: »

One name: Jackie Healy Rae. Do you really think there was no-one more capable in his constituency? Really?

You said half of these elected. Have you backtracked to one of those elected

TBH, no I don't. It's a flight of whimsy, a mechanism by which we could fix this country by peaceful means. The only other option I can see involves mass murder.

Or a quota system

Supporting discrimination against men is misandry.

So half of the governments of the world are culpable of misandry?
Am I as misandrist? I clearly support quotas for candidacy?

Quota legislation actually enforces quotas on both men and women.
Ofcourse as you say its only discrimination when it happens against you.

I've rarely seen Bacik's name attached to anything that wasn't advocating placing men's interests behind those of women's. She's one of those misguided feminists who seem to believe that equality is a zero - sum game.

There are 80+ countries in the world that advocate quotas. Are they all misguided feminists? Youll ignore this awkward fact as usual.

I'm not saying I like the vast majority of candidates the parties are putting forward any more than you are but that's an oxymoron. If legislation is put in place to stop them choosing candidates you don't like, they're not free to choose who they want to run.

If you flick a coin a hundred times the chances of getting less than 30 harps or heads is .01%.

Do you understand this???????

In the dail every time the coins are flicked the heads are getting less than 13. Every time!!!!!!!!!

That is because 50 or 60 Donkey, Turkey F'd Up coins are being allowed in.

Demanding that the results of the coin toss stays between 30:70 and 70:30 ensures that the parties must clear the donkey coins out of the purse.

This means you have better quality harps and heads and no Donkeys coins!

Again with a fair toss the chances of going below 30 is .01%.

How you can accuse people of misandry for replacing a system which discriminates against women and talented men for one taht doesnt but might affrect a man or woman in .01% of cases (probably never) is beyond me.

I didn't disagree.

You did disagree and you have disagreed in this post.

Why should a TD's day be set hours? They're the equivalent of senior executives of a company. Any director of a real business works long, hard hours.

They are not the equivalent. An executives job is to make money for the company. A TDs jobs is to do whats right for his constituents (men, women and children and his country). Some of the experience he will need will come from spending time as a citizen in the community, being a father/mother, seeing the problems for citizens from personal experience.

50 hours a week gets family friendly, talented candidates and not clueless power hungry candidates who spend half their time promoting themselves.

How do you expect to get honest TDs to do whats right for citizens when they dont even do whats right for their families?

Nowhere did I disagree with you that the time TD's spend on public appearances, functions or envelope openings should be reduced and that time spent on actually running their departments.

Who will reduce it? Turkeys dont vote for X-mas. With a quota system they are forced to reduce it to attract women and talented men.

Sleepy · 11-01-2010 06:03PM

T runner wrote: »

Or a quota system

Jaysus, will it cure cancer and make the tea as well?

All a quota system does is ensure that a minimum amount of those put forth for election are women. Not talented women, not capable women just women.

So half of the governments of the world are culpable of misandry?
Am I as misandrist? I clearly support quotas for candidacy?

Quota legislation actually enforces quotas on both men and women.
Ofcourse as you say its only discrimination when it happens against you.

So, that's alright then? Should we have quotas to ensure that a certain pecentage of our candidates for election are gay? black? from the traveller community? non-national? socialist? republican? people above a certain IQ level?

There are 80+ countries in the world that advocate quotas. Are they all misguided feminists? Youll ignore this awkward fact as usual.

They're certainly misguided if they think it does anything beyond provide a minimum number of women, possibly at the expense of better suited male candidates.

If you flick a coin a hundred times the chances of getting less than 30 harps or heads is .01%.

Do you understand this???????

In the dail every time the coins are flicked the heads are getting less than 13. Every time!!!!!!!!!

That is because 50 or 60 Donkey, Turkey F'd Up coins are being allowed in.

Demanding that the results of the coin toss stays between 30:70 and 70:30 ensures that the parties must clear the donkey coins out of the purse.

This means you have better quality harps and heads and no Donkeys coins!

Again with a fair toss the chances of going below 30 is .01%.

How you can accuse people of misandry for replacing a system which discriminates against women and talented men for one taht doesnt but might affrect a man or woman in .01% of cases (probably never) is beyond me.

Because all men aren't donkeys and all women aren't talented. TBH, what your proposal would most likely result in is the wives of the current 'donkeys' being put forward for election.

You did disagree and you have disagreed in this post.

I can't see where I said that "A woman or man doing 50 hours concentrated hard work a week, is more productive than a woman or man putting in 70 half of which half is wasted.". I said that artificially reducing the hours involved in a job i.e. limiting the person in that position to 50 hours when they could be doing 70 hours reduces the capacity for that person to perform.

They are not the equivalent. An executives job is to make money for the company. A TDs jobs is to do whats right for his constituents (men, women and children and his country). Some of the experience he will need will come from spending time as a citizen in the community, being a father/mother, seeing the problems for citizens from personal experience.

50 hours a week gets family friendly, talented candidates and not clueless power hungry candidates who spend half their time promoting themselves.

How do you expect to get honest TDs to do whats right for citizens when they dont even do whats right for their families?

A TD's job is to represent his/her constituency, correct. When that TD can be made a minister, however, he/she has to be capable of running a department many times the size of most companies in this state. When they have the potential to become Taoiseach, i.e. the one in charge of the whole country... you should be getting the idea by now.

Why can't someone who doesn't need family friendly hours be talented? Most of those who suceed at the very top levels of their chosen career (be it business, the arts, science, whatever) do so at the expense of other aspects of their life. You're suggesting punishing these people by introducing a system where they can lose their shot at election in order to allow someone who may not have the same commitment to that profession have a chance.

Who will reduce it? Turkeys dont vote for X-mas. With a quota system they are forced to reduce it to attract women and talented men.

A quota system won't reduce it. Not on it's own. Introducing it in conjunction with limits on working hours for TD's compounds problems by lowering the barriers of entry to the process for those who don't want to put in the work. Yes TD's work should be more focused but there's no good reason to say that it must be kept to beneath a certain number of hours in order to be 'family friendly'.

A reduction of numbers of TD's and implementation of larger electoral regions may help reduce the level of time TD's waste on appearances as they'd be moved towards a position where their performance would become more central to their electorate's voting decisions than who's path they fixed or funeral they attended. But I can't see the turkey's voting for that any more than they'll vote for your magic quota system which simply by introducing minimums on the level of women put forward for election will magically fix everything else!

I'm not defending the inept bunch of idiots we currently have in the Dail. I'm pointing out that this quota system is sexist rubbish. The inference of this policy is that women are more capable at running countries than men. That is sexist.

I see no reason why any piece of law, whether constitutional, legislative or case law, should have reason to refer to gender, race or sexuality. If an act is illegal, it should be illegal for all. Not to mention the nonsense in our constitution about the state recognising "that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved".

11-01-2010 06:49PM

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not defending the inept bunch of idiots we currently have in the Dail. I'm pointing out that this quota system is sexist rubbish. The inference of this policy is that women are more capable at running countries than men. That is sexist.

I see no reason why any piece of law, whether constitutional, legislative or case law, should have reason to refer to gender, race or sexuality. If an act is illegal, it should be illegal for all. Not to mention the nonsense in our constitution about the state recognising "that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved".

Spot on. There is nothing inherent in the sex of a person which suggests that they will be any better than the opposite sex. Any quota system put in place would just place women above men. Its not as if we ever see quota systems for men being put in place in female dominated industries. Its just another ploy to give unnecessary leverage to women. And that is Sexist.

Good post, Sleepy.

We get the politicians we deserve.

Comments