From top: Last week’s comments; Anne-Marie McNally
Gender quotas, self-policing and the beauty of light-touch moderation.
Anne-Marie McNally writes:
Is positive discrimination ever ok? Are gender quotas the balm to all our misogynistic woes? Will we suddenly have a Dáil that is representative of the general population and will women finally have an equal voice in national politics?
As a woman and a woman in politics I’ve been through more than my fair share of debate on this topic over the years. I’ve never personally been a fan of the quota system, finding it a too crude instrument which automatically opens quality female candidates up to accusations of having only been chosen based on their gender.
But then I moved into front-line politics and witnessed first-hand just how much of an old boys club our political system is. Nothing about the current system is conducive to female involvement and that includes the selection processes of traditional parties.
I spent years involved in all-male amateur soccer clubs in this country where I held every position up to and including club chairperson. My gender was never an issue and I rarely experienced misogyny and on the rare occasions I did, it was self-policing – the lads simply would not tolerate it and the offender would be told in no uncertain terms that it was not acceptable. It was based on respect. There was an admiration of my willingness to be involved and that generated respect.
The same is simply not true of the current political system and the older men who see their bastion being infiltrated by women prepared to put their head above the political parapet.
But – and it’s an important but – my experience of the younger self-confident guys who are involved in politics because they feel passionately about things and not just because it’s their father’s seat or some other legacy issue, is that they are delighted to be working alongside strong females who couldn’t be further from ‘token candidates.’
These are the guys whose only interest is in getting things done and working with the best people to make that happen – gender doesn’t come into the equation. That’s when you’ve reached true equality – when your sex is simply not an issue.
Last week, in reply to my column, a commentator suggested that I was merely a ‘pretty paid for mouthpiece’ and to be fair to the person, judging by follow up comments, I don’t even think s/he meant it as a misogynistic comment, it was more just that go-to put down for a woman; ‘ah she’s just a pretty face’ – the very same argument used by those who feel hard done-by in selection conventions.
I was then assured that it was OK because it was a ‘genuine compliment’. So that’s grand then, no problem completely dismissing my work on an issue because you meant it when you called me pretty! I need to get over myself right?
Actually no, do you realise that when a person decides to make themselves public one of the major concerns is ‘what will people say about me?’ As a woman that is amplified a hundred-fold – and don’t get me wrong – I’m only too well aware that women’s harshest critics are most often other women – but when it comes from a male it is almost always with the intention of undermining your contribution to the debate by dismissing you as window dressing.
But here’s the positive – the self-policing I’d experienced in soccer kicked into action on the comment thread last week and people said ‘nope, not acceptable. The guys I am lucky enough to work with in the Social Democrats don’t even stop to consider my gender when we get together to work through an issue and are only too happy to be part of a party with two strong women at the helm. It does not dent their masculinity in any way and why would it?
Given that our political system wasn’t changing by itself I now recognise that gender quotas are a necessary evil to force change but my experience of working with people who are the future of Irish politics assures me that they won’t need to be around for very long because true gender equality is on its way – we just need to lose the deadwood from the system.
Anne-Marie McNally is a political and media strategist working with Catherine Murphy TD and will be a candidate for the Social Democrats in the forthcoming General Election. Follow Anne-Marie on Twitter: @amomcnally
Meanwhile…
Behind you!
Anne-Marie discussing Himself on Tonight with Vincent Browne last night with the host (left) and a nice-looking young lad.
Via Cornelius Markey
maybe he meant pretty “well” paid mouthpiece………
Nope… he clarified. He meant it!
That comment was certainly NOT a put down.
The end of Gender Quotas is near. All we need is someone with a neck hard enough to say they are gender fluid and identify as a woman sometimes then put them selves forward for consideration to stand for election.
Yes, how awful that would be even though it would affect literally none of us.
There is no such thing as “gender fluid” in the same way that there is no such thing as choosing your gender.
Nature is wrong so.
(Couldn’t be arsed linking anything ; )
Lads, if I’m generating clicks, I want some cash.
You weren’t even mentioned in the piece above. Clown
Lol. I’m sorry I hurt your feelings, dear. It’s far too much fun though.
I think you should have a gold star. Now stop sulking. Here’s a lollipop.
I think salmon eile has gotten his arse handed to him. Fair play Ann Marie
Politics for ages was akin to an old boys club…that is finally being broken down
veeeeeery slooooooowly
“Pretty paid for mouthpiece” – Would have been best for you to ignore it as it can be used for both gender so the all “I’m a woman, blablabla…” thing was unnecessary. It’s a shame, I thought you were different. Oh well.
The implication was that it was around looks. Society views women (or lad culture does) as an object to be viewed solely on their looks and not on other attributes. The subtext to salmons comment was not one that can be applied equally thus your point is moot…NEXT!
Ssssh, Fluffy. The wimins are not oppressed. It’s the white Catholic nice guy that Ireland has been keeping down. How dare you challenge that narrative.
+1
He was throwing around the whole “I’m the only real man in this thread” thing as well.
Angry little boy syndrome.
It takes one as they say, to know one
You’re missing a comma. I mean, seeing as you’re trying to patronise people n’all……
Tbf, James Morrissey got a lot of comments regarding his looks when he was on the tv/radio defending the DOB. I should point out that all of the comments were warrented and correct
No it wasn’t mr biscuits. The implication as you put it was certainly that looks are or were a factor as they are in all walks of life. And certainly Anne Marie is good-looking. However the substance was about who was paying this good looking piper and calling the tune. Do you really think a previously unknown TD from North Kildare can single handedly fund and orchestrate a prolonged campaign against one of the richest men in Ireland? With no outside help?
“single handedly fund and orchestrate a prolonged campaign”
How much money does it take for a TD to ask questions in the Dail?
I think this chap watches American TV and thinks it’s real life.
THERE’S NO TELLING HOW HIGH THIS THING GOES
Erin Brockovitch is on her way
She isn’t pretty so your comment isn’t valid.
I’m sure Anne is devastated by your opinion.
@ahjayzis angry and insecure too! Lets add more adjectives!
I hope she isn’t, she should ignore me as well!!
As if salmon wasn’t insufferable enough…
yeah, what’s with that? salmon’s just a pointless antagonist – i’m kind of amazed he’s been afforded the kudos of a serious reply.
broadsheet comment boxes should have a button in the shape of a pair of underpants, so other commentators can signify a wedgie upon juvenile gobsheens like salmoneile, jonotti etc.
Scottser it seems my antagonism as you label it did indeed have a valid point as the author decided to use it as the basis of her next party political broadcast
well, they say the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Didn’t Julia ( or JR ) infer that Dr. Mercille was a bit of fluff ? Are we now saying that she is a sexist little so and so???
https://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/07/10/theyre-picking-on-julien/
“(it promotes, nay ogles, Julien Mercille, conspiracy theorist extraordinaire, Maître Mitty on a Monday. Worse still – and alien to the “get that state out of my life readership, this is a leftie. “Beef cake”, ” boffin”, “egghead”, “the man they all want to marry”: all bouffant hair and sallow skin, his clean-cut just-bathed Canadian earnestness, an embodiment of dissent for Broadsheet’s hirsute, lycra-clad, hashtag revolutionaries.”
Nah, equality for some means some people can decide what’s right and wrong while others must keep quiet.
Oh jaysus. I said before that Ms McNally was trying to corner the angry outrage market, and this would seem to confirm it. A silly throw away remark from an anonymous commentor on a blog-type website site elicits this response? Dail Eireann should be fun if McNally manages to get elected. By “fun” i mean “even more stupid than previously, but interesting car crash tv when I’m bored”.
Im just imagining a cat at a typewriter hitting the buttons at random going “miaow miaow miaow”
Are u that cat?
I know you are, but what am I?
(nice comeback!)
“A silly throw away remark from an anonymous commentor on a blog-type website site elicits this response?”
Yes, silly little woman writing an opinion piece about sexism in society for a blog where sexist stuff was written about her.
No, silly general election candidate getting publicly annoyed at a random blog comment. Hint: she may need to deal better with these comments in the future, like all other TDs (or indeed other public figures) have to.
Yes the rage was dripping from her comments about how happy she was that other posters chastised the misogynist and how she observed that this was reflected in her personal experiences outside of politics.
@Owen its not how its intended, its how its percieved.
If my mate calls me ‘a fag’ I laugh as we are mates
If a member of the public who I dont know does it with what seems malicious intent I see it as homophobia…
I think her points on perceived sexism are well-reasoned
However she didn’t address the main point salmon raised namely who is funding her
What if a member of the public called u something that was subjective in nature, and not as concrete in its town as ‘fag’? Lets say they called u ‘soft’. Would you flip the lid at that, or perhaps say “well, that might have been a bit rude, but whatevs”? Sorry folks, but there is either a very think skin involved here, or a lot of faux outrage. Neither of these traits seem appropriate in a prospective TD.
“However she didn’t address the main point salmon raised namely who is funding her”
Isn’t it the Soc Dems?
@ Ban Doyle
She’s an employee of Catherine Byrne / the Soc Dems as far as I know. What are you inferring?
Do you know who is funding the thousands of aspiring candidates for the next GE or is just ones with actual viewpoints and opinions you worry about?
it seems normal owen c
that is, it sadly appears normal
@Owen, there is no faux outrage. No thin skin. There is merely an opinion column on why, unfortunately, she believes a quota system is currently required in Irish politics.
The same type of “logic” could be thrown back at you. Why do you keep coming on here with your faux outrage at someone expressing an opinion. What is it you’re afraid of? You’re clearly just seeking attention. blah blah….
“Would you flip the lid at that, or perhaps say “well, that might have been a bit rude, but whatevs”?”
Or he could write an optimistic opinion piece about homophobic attitudes in society that will be (deliberately) misinterpreted as ‘flipping the lid’.
Hello ahjayzis
I don’t ‘worry’ about any aspirant politician’s opinion, it’s a free and fair society
I worry about the barely concealed agenda politics
from what I recall salmon’s main contention was that it was possible that Ms McNally and Catherine Murphy’s campaign against DOB was both being funded by people who are/were business rivals of DOB AND that DOB was corrupt
On the first point Ms McNally et al could easily clear that up by publishing detailed accounts.
“salmon’s main contention was that it was possible that Ms McNally and Catherine Murphy’s campaign against DOB was both being funded by people who are/were business rivals of DOB AND that DOB was corrupt”
Any evidence for this at all? Do we all have to defend ourselves from accusations that idiots pick from thin air. I could say that *you* are being funded by DOB to defend him online. Do I have any evidence? Nope, but I’m so deluded and full of my own self importance that I demand you respond to the accusation I made just now.
Hello moyestwithexcitement
I didn’t ‘demand’ anything. I merely made a suggestion. Perhaps there is nothing to it at all. I’m merely pointing that the commentator Anne-Marie chose not to address the substantive point but focuses on the rather more obscure though nonetheless interesting encounters she believes she has experienced with so-called everyday sexism.
And I note that you didn’t deny that D’OB is funding you. What are you hiding, Doyle?
Haha moyest, if only that were true
You’re still dodging the question. I can only assume there is merit in the accusation I made up with zero evidence and I can publicly judge you accordingly.
I heard Dan sleeps in an oxygen tent that he thinks gives him sexual powers. He could clear this up by letting us all watch him sleep every night for a week.
If it was sexism , intentional it not, it’s still bad out on the part of salmon eile. I’m not defending his/ her arguments nor do I subscribe to his/ her points of view but there is something to be said for the demonisation of commentators who don’t agree with the prevailing commentary of broadsheet. A lot of people putting lots of other people into boxes….something that has been raised before. Gladly the broadsheet commentariat doesn’t reflect the irish electoral voting base.
Case in point: scottser calling jonotti etc juvenile gobsheens.
Here’s something that might blow the minds of ahjaysis / don / fluffy / other members of the thought police…
I think DOB is a crook
I want to repeal the 8th
I supported the marriage referendum
I voted against the European fiscal compact referendum coz i think it’s a straight jacket in times of recession
I disagree with the EU policy of austerity coz I realise it’s hurts those harder who have lesser means
I believe those weakest in society should be protected the most
But yet I will vote FG/ labour again because I believe they managed to drag the country out of it’s worst recession in the least damaging way possible…especially when viewed against events in Greece. I know mistakes have been made along the way. Call me naive. I am not a party member of either / nor am I employed by them.
Queue the abuse…FG stooge etc.
Cue …apologies
Thank queue
The blind leading the blind comes to mind…I would not abuse you, you are going to have the burden on your shoulders of voting FG/Lab for the rest of your existence.
When you next pass a homeless hostel drop in and ask what was the net result of the FG/Lab policy and cheerfully tell them
“But yet I will vote FG/ labour again because I believe they managed to drag the country out of it’s worst recession in the least damaging way possible…especially when viewed against events in Greece”
They will all be thrilled and you will end up besties for ever and ever ….
Your dismissive / smarky response proves my point. I never defended the gov policy on homelessness. Its horrific. But note my point about Greece. It’s worth highlighting that the Greek government estimates that 20000 people are homeless on the streets of Athens. Estimates in dublin, from homeless dublin.ie put the figure of homeless dublin at approx 3100.
Both figures are unjustifiable.
@Steve Im not being sarky at all, in fact you know that some of the most vunerable of society suffered under this govt (as you said) and still you will vote for them. THe minute you say that your opinions become as worthless as a Labour election manifesto
Thanks fluffy!!!
Open up! Thought-policeman! You’re under arrest for a TEXTBOOK case of Doublethink.
To vote for the party that has demonstrated it has no desire / ability to do anything about 5 of the 6 things you list as important issues is either very cynical or a sign of despair.
A half-charged iPhone could have performed the economic job of this government – it followed directives to the letter from abroad. Big deal. And it’s been a total shambles since the Troika left, crisis after crisis.
Things are improving, yes, but they’re also regressing – we’re not building a prosperous society that’s learned lessons from it’s mistakes, we’re reverting to the Ireland of the noughties, in every way.
Housing price bubble, cost of living hikes, smaller and smaller tax base, overeliance on multinationals with zero domestic industrial / economic strategy, rising income inequality, for god’s sake the SAME developers who screw up are coining it again, the same banks are gouging the public who saved them.
I want economic prosperity – but that’s NOT what we had in the noughties and it’s not what we have now – it’s a sham built on sand and it’ll be paid for again when the next bust comes.
<3
I never said we lived in a perfect world. But on your points:
Government supported marriage referendum.
Government got the protection of life during pregnancy act bill through.It’s small…but it’s a start. Whether you like it or not abortion is still a divisive issue in this country.
Some have argued , like the fiscal council,that the most recent budget broke fiscal rules by being too expansionary.
Expanding the tax base = USC , LPT.
Social services have been broadly maintained at pre recession levels. Drive 90 miles up the M1 and you get a third of what we pay…
Where the government has let us down is protecting the homeless.
Shall I go on???
@Steve, I responded/ranted below to save space!
The cheek of you with your moderate opinions!!!
The thought police have judged this post as too boring, Next please.
It appears the Soc Dems are the new Greens
Always ‘right’ about everything
They are the story rather than the story
Yawn
“Always ‘right’ about everything”
Stand in front of you
Take the force of the blow
Projectiooooooon
I’m sorry, can you please write your comment in English?
Ja, genau.
Name a party that proudly boasts that what it says is always wrong.
That’s why I will be voting Social Democrat (as I voted Green in the past). I like it when my politicians are right!
Incidentally I would still vote green if I had a viable candidate. I, seemingly unlike the rest of the country, don’t blame them entirely for the FF fupp ups over successive governments.
Well you know what I mean
the sort of judgemental ‘holier than thou’ brand of politics.
even if I agreed with a lot of green party ideas (I do) I would still be turned off by the prosetylising
“the sort of judgemental ‘holier than thou’ brand of politics.”
And which bit specifically does this attitude come through? When she simply observes someone made sexist comments about her?
you seem kind of angry there moyest, come off your high horse buddy
the point I made is that if these kinds of politicians spent more time preaching about how others misperceive their message and more time responding to voter concerns the political life would be healthier in your country.
less time preaching I meant
“you seem kind of angry there moyest, come off your high horse buddy”
Course I do, mate. You’re uncomfortable with my questions so you try and mischaracterise my tone as emotional and thus irrational. People like yourself are painfully easy to read. You all follow the same templates.
“the point I made is that if these kinds of politicians spent more time preaching about how others misperceive their message and more time responding to voter concerns the political life would be healthier in your country.”
I thought the point you were making was that she has a holier than thou attitude. So where is this displayed? Which language specifically belies this thinking you’re accusing her of displaying?
Fair enough. Although I feel like it’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t kind of scenario.
I kinda know what you mean though. I like Eamon Ryan, and think he speaks a lot of sense on a variety of subjects, but he can sound very smug or self-righteous (or something) and I think it quite often hinders him getting his point across.
Yeah I like Eamon as well, in fact I would consider him a friend. I would not think he is the worst in displaying these traits, but sure people would see things different
Haha. I genuinely reread and couldn’t see why I was awaiting moderation! :-) I fupped up. Sorry broadsheet :-)
I am delighted Anne-Marie is being judged like a man would be, and so it should be in an equal world – It’s a de-facto recognition of her abilities.
@ Anne Marie
I’m delighted that you find my comment so interesting that you devote a whole column to it. I would be really flattered if you would only respond to the substance of it now, namely who is funding your anti-DOB campaign. I think the public have a right to know this
PS I’m also delighted broadsheet published your pic again. You look gorgeous:)
The Social Democrats are funding it. Ask a simple question…..
Salmon any qualms about funding, contact SIPO…ffs
Aside from the screenshot of your comment, very little of this column is about it.
The way I see it, the column is in fact about how sexism still exists in our society today, from the very top right down to little boy trolls at their keyboards. You are used as a very recent and vivid example of the latter. If that makes you feel good about yourself, then your disorder is more serious than I thought.
The piece also points that things are changing, because such sexism is self policing, demonstrated quite clearly by the fact that the vast majority of other commentators on here think you’re a helmet.
You got it in 1 Fergus!
I think it’s pretty obvious to everyone including the usual FG Lab Dinny shills/ blind followers/ contrarians.
Thanks, & keep up the good work A-M.
You’re right in two fronts
The column is all about me, me, me as was last week’s column – it is not an agenda formed in any opinion or policy platform of substance – we can agree on that.
On the second point also but also I must correct you. You say major commentators here think I’m a helmet.
Who are these major commentators? Seems to me they’re a box of looney reactionary looky- likeys based in fact in their orthodoxy and regressive, counter factual thinking. Rather than address commentary that differs from their myopic unipolar view they prefer to denigrate and demonise their opponent. So if major commentators here oppose me it only reflects their ego.
or, you know, you could just be a helmet..
@salmon: Is it just me or are you becoming even less coherent / intelligible?
I said the vast majority of commentators think you’re a helmet, not major commentators.
There is a difference. You must be purple with embarrassment.
a purple helmet you say?
Salmon, who is funding your anti-anti-DOB campaign?
It’s self-financed Pedey – want to donate? Of course your remark while funny illustrates my point about orthodox thinking here. I’m not running an anti-anti DOB campaign or even an anti Anne Marie campaign – I’m a big admirer! But I’d like to know where the money incoming from, for transparency’s sake.
You keep talking about money. What are you seeing the money you’re concerned about being spent on?
Ha lads – yis are very self-absorbed altogether!! The entire basis of the column is about the requirement for gender quotas and the political culture that currently exists for female candidates! I make a passing reference to something that was (as I explain) innocently & I think, unintentionally sexist and yis get all up in arms as if the whole column is devoted to poor oul Salmon! My point therein is that quotas are a necessary evil because most people don’t even realise the inherent sexism that deters women from getting involved in anything that requires public scrutiny.
And for what it’s worth – because apparently my pretty face(!) detracted from my reply last week that NOBODY has paid either Catherine Murphy or I to pursue a thread that unraveled when we began examining the water metering contracts. We followed that thread down a rabbit hole and here we are.
Also – zero problem with anybody complimenting how another looks – including the lovely Julien – but it becomes a problem when you dismiss them as anything other than the sum total of how they look. So Salmon, cheers, I’m glad you like my pic but I also hope you know I’m way more than a (questionable) pretty face!! :-)
I make a passing reference to something
The post is titled ‘A Pretty Pass’, There’s a giant screenshot of the comment before your little treatsie and the bits about sexism, not quotas are highlighted.
Now that’s not your fault, that’s Bodgers endless quest for clicks, but as a media savvy politico you should be aware of how percecption works.
Na I’m good with it – I generally have more faith is people’s ability to actually read & understand the piece rather than a headline….present company excepted…
Haha…. nicely done :-)
ye want to be careful with them oul quotas, otherwise for every catherine murphy you get a mary mitchell o’connor.
Haha, it’d be good for car sales at least ;)
On the screenshot; it’s actually slightly smaller than actual size, at least on my monitor.
The column itself only references salmons comment to demonstrate that such sexism exists at the very lowest point of the bottom of the pit, as well as at the top.
but yet the vast majority of the comments here reference the original comment in some way.
Quelle surprise.
That’s beside the point, but unsurprising.
Tbf, the post was very long and some of us are very hugnover.
Thanks for this Anne Marie
I think your response has at least now partly answered the question I posed but it raised more questions. I’ll come back to this later
You genuinely think she should answer to you, don’t you. :D You’re a cute little basement dweller.
I may be wrong but if we look at your case in particular I thought that up to now you were not dismissed on basis of your gender – neither Catherine Murphy. The situation is changed for me since this column as I have no time for the all sexism debacle or for this gender quota question in politics – on the latter, if there is just one woman in politics at high level (and there is more than one) then the all point is moot: its doable, they done it and others can do it.
Alright Anne Marie
I’m just going to repeat the question very slowly this time.
The question was not:
A) who is paying Anne Marie McNally to pursue DOB?
B) who is paying Catherine Murphy to pursue DOB?
The question was:
Who is funding and orchestrating the campaign to pursue DOB? Detailed well-composed serial FOI requests of the type, level of detail and complexity we are supposed to believe to have been written entirely by you and Catherine, reveal a level of sophistication that to my mind has not been displayed anywhere in your previous careers – feel free to correct me on that if I err.
As for your points about sexism I did realise my comment last week wasn’t the focal point of your column, but admittedly it took a while to figure that out, you might do well to hire an editor. In fact your column this week was such a badly composed rant that I refer again to the points raised in paragraph 1 above!
As to the substance of your column which you have now graciously outlined, I couldn’t really say. Not being a woman I tend not to experience sexism. I apologise unreservedly though if you feel parts of my comments to you were sexist. While noting that being accused of being a pretty paid for shill could apply to persons of either or even of fluid gender.
Overall and in spite of your grandstanding in the face of my simple questions may I say that I greatly admire the work yourself and Catherine are doing in the DOB issue.
Tl;dr
Who cares who’s funding the campaign to pursue DO’B, if such a campaign exists. Would be happy if someone were willing to spend their money going after him.
I care Lilly. He or even she who seeks equity must come with clean hands. These people are purporting to representing us and have their wages paid by me and I want to know why I should spend my money in that particular shop.
“have their wages paid by me”
There ya go. I knew this was about a power fix.
And I’ll say it really slowly this time….
NO person or entity is or ever was funding or orchestrating our parliamentary pursuit of the circumstances surrounding the awarding of the Irish Water metering contracts. This was never about a campaign targeted at any individual – -the fact that most of the threads led down one road was incidental and we didn’t back off when it became clear who and what the issue was. Simples. If you take the time to go back you can trace its evolution through PQS & FOI’s. And despite what you seem to think it’s really not all that difficult to ask a question, get a non-answer then ask it 5 different ways until you do get an answer and that’s what we did.
As for nothing in mine or Catherine’s past leading you to beleive we are capable of being tenacious, considered, and intelligent, I’m awfully sorry – had I known you’d been following my career so closely I’d have given you a written CV detailing my Hons degree in Finance, My PgDIP in Law, My first class MA in Political Comms etc etc not to mention Catherine’s 30 odd years of Public Service that happened under the radar simply because the topics of housing, planning reform, local government reform, community services etc were not as sexy to the media as Denis O’Brien. But yeah, you’re probably right – 2 wimminz could never come up with this stuff on their own….Like, next thing you know we’ll be telling you we read maps & all by ourselves..imagine.
Salmon I thought we were becoming pals :-(
Hons degree in Finance : Name the University ?
My PgDIP in Law: Name the University
Oh we are. To be fair to you that’s a fair answer and I’m just going to have to take your word for it for now.
PS Anne Marie your dress sense and looks aside – you can expect plenty of scrutiny when you embark into public life, the snarky tone in telling me about sending a full CV etc isn’t very “political”. Why don’t you set up a personal webpage etc to direct these kinds of query to? Just a suggestion. You also need plenty of balls, but you do appear to be ably equipped there.
Ah so Salmon can patronise the woman but the woman can’t patronise him back.
Translation: If your going to be in the public eye you’re going to encounter complete morons. I’m doing you a favour by giving you a very accurate feel for what it’s going to be like.
Is yis a word?
Have yis no dictionary up in yon ?
This is classic broadsheet, some anonymous commentor on the internet makes a pretty decent post and at the end uses reductionism to illustrate a point and a politician leaps on it to bandwagon up some election propoganda to the choir. Usual suspects lap it up.
Quotas are a dreadful idea if it means this sort of person gets to abuse them
Completely agree
Really brings the worst sort of people to the top of the pond
@Anne-Marie@ Genderequality
Unfair . I also applauded Julien’s refusal to succumb to what he describes as the media’s “propaganda of silence”.
@ Steve
1. I’ll always be grateful to them for that.
2. Protection of Life has way, waaay too many limitations to make it worth celebrating all that much. It’s a token gesture at best and does nothing for the vast, vast majority – fatal foetal abnormality being a case in point. It’s the very, very, last inch of decency to cede that a woman in danger of death (but not ill health, mind) matters more than a zygote, big whoop. And polls show it’s not nearly as divisive an issue as it once was. The people voted for protection of life over twenty years ago. Marriage equality was deemed divisive only a few months ago.
3. The government has ignored its own Fiscal Council on EVERY budget it’s produced, so much for fiscal prudence. Every budget it has produced has been found regressive by the ESRI, so much for social justice. They’ve rejected the concept of equality proofing their budgets or even producing breakdowns of net loss and gain for income brackets and have failed spectacularly to reform the budget process itself – it’s still a big “Surprise giveaway” of our own money by one minister, used as a political tool and not a consultative process involving our parliamentary committees and interested groups and citizens in any way like any other advanced country. The process is still opaque, Noonan could announce decentralisation nua, a Noonan Bowl or anything else devoid of parliamentary input and cost benefit analysis and costing us billions with no oversight.
4. USC was Fianna Fail, this government is rolling it back and has committed to abolishing it if re-elected. LPT is a tax on Dubliners for being in Dublin, was Fianna Fails idea, and is botched in that it has no role in tackling land hoarding or pretty much anything to head off land speculation. There’s not an iota of progressive or strategic thinking in it – it raises money for local authorities to partially replace money the government removed from them to pay bank debts. And let’s not get into their treatement of local government ingeneral – this government has further centralised the most centralised state in Europe. Inheritance tax, the very bedrock tax of an unequal society is being lowered.
5. Social welfare has been broadly maintained unless you’re guilty of the crime of being under 25, disabled, blind, a lone parent, a carer, a parent.
It’s really quiet in work today >_<
Don’t worry son, no one is reading it
Grand so. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree…. :) I still want the 8th repealed, I think the level of LPT properly reflects access to public services/amenities… i do agree parliamentary input / budget process should be reformed. But getting TD Input at heads of bill stage is a start.
We should all go into politics.
But cheers for engaging as opposed to shrill-tagging.
But can you blame people for responding dismissively towards you when you are, in all objective fairness, an idiot?
“I like FG/Labour for their efforts to expand the tax base, like USC!”
“Actually, USC was brought in by Fianna Fail; Fg/Labour just reduced it and have stated they wish to scrap it”
“Ah well, agree to disagree.”
If your grasp on facts is that loose, and your willingness to accept any reality but the one you’ve constructed in your own head that justifies your choices by point-blank inventing things to support them, why on earth should any of us bother engaging with you on any meaningful level?
Sigh.
Read my comment: I never said I supported USC – I was responding to ahjaysis assertion that gov hadn’t expanded tax base…with things like USC or property tax. I don’t support the USC in it’s present form. I don’t think it needs rid of, just moved further away from low earners. I’d be surpirsed if FG got rid of it. Even socialist FG admit that they would keep it.
Au contraire…
http://www.thejournal.ie/enda-kenny-usc-2395149-Oct2015/
Sorry- my sentence doesn’t make sense. I meant socialist SF
http://m.independent.ie/business/budget/news/sinn-fin-wants-to-keep-all-three-rates-of-hated-usc-in-tax-policy-34111425.html
I don’t think you’re an idiot and I don’t mean to be condescending or whatever – but if you vote for them, you don’t get to complain about the homeless crisis, a spoo health service or anything else they had the power to change and didn’t. They’ve had the largest majority of any government in our history – what didn’t get done and what got worse didn’t get done and got worse on purpose.
Based on their track record (and I voted Labour in 2011) their performance to date, the sheer gurning incompetence of it all, does not incline me to renew their contract, I’m overdue a democratic revolution.
All recessions end, the fact that ours did too isn’t evidence of good governance, let alone a trump card that should excuse their many, many failures.
Fair enough.
I look forward to the day when AAA/PbP/independent coalition provides everything you want out of a democratic government.
I didn’t call you a Thatcherite, no need to call me a Sex-Pot Trot.
Ha sex pot trot. Hadnt heard that one before. Lolz.
What are your voting intentions anyway?? Purely as a matter of interest :) Sure ye know mine.
Well Cath Murphy was my No.3 last time, she and the SocDems are my No.1 now. By far one of the most effective independent TD’s ever, I can’t wait to see what she can do with a party.
Thoughtful, rational social democracy with an eye on the next 20 years, not the next headline.
Yeah agreed Catherine murphy has been great. I’ll be giving them a number 3/4 for the candidates running in dublin central.
Just playing devils advocate ….but would be pis@&d if they went into coalition with an FG led government??
Yep.
I dearly wish Labour had stayed out in 2011. It’s like Sisyphus with the centre-left in Ireland, your support rises and rises for twenty years on the back of left wing policies, you spend one term in a right-wing government, abandoning your policies and you’re back at the start again and the cycle resumes. I don’t buy the whole “we’ll water down FG’s rightwingyness”.
I reckon it’s a distinct possibility. Harney was a fool but she was right about one thing…the worst day in government is still better than the best day in opposition. Maybe Anne Marie and bodger might clarify on here in the next soc dem post. Who are soc dem willing to go into coalition with…
Left / right…aren’t they all sloshing around the middle these days?? When ye have labour voting for austerity policies, FG supporting a gay marriage referendum…AAA against the most socialist form of taxation…I.e a tax on property…doesn’t the concept of right wing left wing become rather meaningless? Nothing’s really that black and white anymore. Just IMO
I read your comment. You responded to a contention that FG/Labour were reducing the tax base by saying “Expanding the tax base = USC”. This implies that you’re giving this government some credit for expanding the tax base, as a result of USC. (Even if you’re apparently against USC, which, sure, why not add one more contradictory mess to your grab-bag of half-formed policy preferences) This is inaccurate on multiple bases. You then repeat that FG wouldn’t scrap the USC. This is not what FG are saying. Your reaction to this is to call Sinn Fein socialist and move on.
You demand respect for your own views despite the fact that they’re poorly formed and often wrong, yet you condescendingly sigh when this is pointed out to you. You make mocking remarks about an alternative left coalition, while feigning upset and horror when questioned on your own twaddle. You don’t just get respect as a matter of course. You earn it, by not being stupid and wrong.
Sorry if I implied that.
I don’t think any of my “policies” are incoherent. Not everything in politics is black and white as mentioned above. Just because I’ll be voting FG labour doesn’t mean I sign up to every single measure they’ve introduced.
I didn’t dismiss left wing politics, I agree with a lot of them…I just don’t think what AAA /PbP is realistic / proper governance. That’s just my opinion. Thanks for reverting to name calling….ye big bully :)
On to the main substance of the article rather than the window dressing designed to garner attention
This article makes no sense at all. Anne Marie says that sexism in football was self-policed out and wasn’t an issue. Then she says that most of the younger politicians are fine and that all of her party are models in gender equality (obvs). There’s some talk of a comment here and how sexism affects women.
Apparently ‘the same is simply not true of the current political system’ (apart from the ‘young’ folk of course). At no point at all does she give any examples or data to back this up at all or any as to why there should be gender quotas. Apart from people on the internet calling her pretty of course. It’s just ‘Actually, our party are great but really, we need quotas’
None of this touches on the greater questions surrounding quotas in politics which imo is a horrific idea and would only unfairly handicap women in politics.
Throws incontinence nappy and screeches ageism @ Anne-Marie
Precisely.
Tl;dr
Waffle waffle something about wimmin here waffle more wimmin stuff waffle
This woman is made for Dáil Éireann alright
Jaysus, better put on the kettle.
It’s gonna turn out just like You’ve Got Mail, Jeremy.
salmon and Anne Marie turn out to be besties, fall in love and end up moving in together!
But only after a madcap across country road trip to reunite two long lost sisters
Stranger things have happened mr biscuits
or even better – ‘when salmon met ann-marie’. the fake orgasm scene relived..
Who decided on the title “Pretty Pass”. BS editor or Anne-marie?
Thanks J, it was a ‘sheet editorial decision that was originally ‘Things Have Come To A Pretty Pass’ then ‘When Things Come To A Pretty Pass’ and, finally, at Bodger’s insistence (the whole brevity thing), ‘A Pretty Pass’.
Thanks Bodger. PHEW *wipes “glow ” from brow *
I’m losing faith in in the SocDems over this kind of nonsense. It was a completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory comment by an anonymous poster on a a clickbait website, it hardly merits a read never mind a response. The original SocDem founders are compelling candidates for government but they are going to have to ditch these thin skinned sensitive petals. Anne-Marie McNally might also brush up on her reading comprehension because when you’re being accused of shilling against DOB taking issue with the word “pretty” in the sentence just makes you look foolish. And so what if politics is more sexist than a football association, it’s more everything, lucrative, open to corruption, collusion, back stabbing, public perception & deception, because guess what there’s more at stake! Power isn’t given it’s taken….except (sadly) when there’s a quota.
“I’m losing faith in in the SocDems over this kind of nonsense.”
No you aren’t. You never had any to begin with. This trick of ‘Well I used to support/like this and now I don’t so you should listen to my opinion on this’ is really old and tired and generally highly transparent.
Thanks for telling me what I reeeally think. Maybe I only signed up, volunteered and went to the meeting for an audience with Fintan o Toole. Either that or I wanted to join a political party that hadn’t been completely infiltrated by shills and lobbyists.
BS’s fortune teller turned dictator. Excited by Moyest.
“we just need to lose the deadwood from the system.” = any man over the age of 45. =Misandry and Ageism
We could start by ridding the Dail of the macho bullsh*t practice of hanging around the place well into the night. It’s inefficient, unnecessary and generally puts women off.