Those annoying Voices

// February 11th, 2011 // 2 Comments » // GE11

Image via Wikipedia

A goodly number of people complain about those who would complain about voices that sound whiny, the charge from the former is that this complaint from the latter is primarily sexist in nature. Certainly women’s voices are pitched within a somewhat higher range than that of men but most men and women do not find a woman’s voice annoying.

The truth is that adults in general find a voice pitched higher than the normal range annoying not because it sounds like a woman’s voice but because it sounds like a small child’s voice. And while we’re programmed not to find our own offspring’s voices sufficiently annoying to entertain for too long thoughts of leaving them at the closest convent door with a note saying how you couldn’t cope and that child is the true prince of Monte Cristo, it’s not the same for the children of others. So when we hear the approaching high pitched whine of a 5 year old flying his car around a restaurant we bristle.

And when we hear someone on the telly, in particular a public figure, who is flying their policy idea around the studio we feel much the same. And that goes doubly for someone who sounds like they’re losing control of the flight of this policy and that’s all going to crash and burn before our eyes. So no complaining that you find Martin Mansergh’s voice annoying is not remotely sexist.

A gender kink in political reform proposals

// February 9th, 2011 // No Comments » // GE11

Image via Wikipedia

There is a recurring desire expressed to see more sittings of the Oireachtas moving to 4 days or even 5 days in part as a means to facilitate more family hours so that there would be less late sittings.

However, this creates another problem, as these same family friendly hours actually only suit those whose families are close enough for them to see them in the evening, i.e. Dublin based TDs or those within commuting distance as other TDs from further afield are actually away from their families during the week. So either the TDs from outside of Dublin move their children, dogs, cats, spouses to Dublin and have them attend school, chase cats and work there or they leave them at home and they only see them at weekends.

But that’s not family friendly at all and it will be to their electoral disadvantage as moving the family and those the family home to Dublin will leave those TDs open to a challenge from a more locally based candidate and the cycle would begin again. So a solution to a problem that we are told has a great impact on getting women, especially those with young child involved in politics it would seem that the likely effect of moving to more shorter sitting days would be to deny female TDs the longevity needed to become ministers, party leaders or ultimately Taoiseach because they either have to leave their children for longer periods of time or leave themselves more vulnerable to electoral defeat.

Of course, a solution to this might be to question why we need the Dail chamber aspect of being a parliamentarian requires you to be in Dublin at all. Might we start to reconsider the assembly nature of Dail process entirely? After all, it’s not like anyone is in the chamber genuinely listening to what others have to say so why do they need to be so close proximity at all? Would it be more properly family friendly to have a virtual chamber?

Did FF think their political reform proposals through at all?

// February 7th, 2011 // 2 Comments » // GE11

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Having a substitute in the Dail as suggested in the political reform segment of the FF manifesto would hardly free up a minister’s time at all, it’s not like voting in the Dail is causing them that many headaches for them as it is. They are already allocated up to half a dozen civil servants to handle their constituency work at the taxpayers expense. This is done without letting on to the constituent who is lead to believe it’s the minister who is writing and signing all those letters until that letter turns out to be for a murder or child molester in which case we’re then told it was their staff wrote it.

And what happens when the minister seeks to run for re-election or is dropped from the cabinet? Do they kick out the sub? and what do they campaign on? – People of Ballysomewhere “Vote for me, my sub did all the local work.” Or is it intended that you’d be a minister in a government and if you fall out of favour with the party leader that your political career over? Talk about giving a means to quell dissent against the leader.

Think about that for a moment, anyone who is a minister would serve entirely at the pleasure of the Taoiseach, once appointed they would be open to being dismissed and have no seat to return to, not means to challenge the leader of the day. There is a strong argument to made for this power if we were to elected the Taoiseach directly as the person in that office would have  strong direct mandate from the people. Yet to continue to have the Dail elect the Taoiseach who then appoints ministers, none of whom will be able to challenge him for fear of losing their jobs, would mean that for example Michael Martin would not have been able to challenge Brian Cowen nor Albert Reynolds challenge Charles Haughey. Once gone as minister they would be gone from parliament and without an income would be gone from public life.

These set of proposals is even more half baked than I thought they might be, and FF are still persisting, and being allowed to do so by the press, with inventing terms that make no sense like single seat PR *(it’s called the Alternative Vote and as LibDems in the UK will tell you it’s not really all that proportionate)  and unilateral renegotiation.

The lunacy of an agreed FG/Lab program for government

// February 2nd, 2011 // 2 Comments » // 2011, GE11

Image via Wikipedia

It has come up repeatedly in press commentary over the last few weeks and was a feature  again last night on Vincent Browne that FG and Labour should published an agreed program for government before the election takes place. We know that Vincent isn’t the greatest with numbers so I’ll be really slow with this.

If FG get 60 seats and Labour 30 then that’s a 2:1 ratio or if FG and Labour both got 50 seats then that’s a 1:1 ratio or a 50/50 split.

The ratio of the parties would affect and reflect more than the simple make up of the cabinet. It would reflect the level of public support that each party’s manifesto had gotten and thus the legitimate negotiating strength for each position. That is why for the parties to negotiate now in advance of the people giving their verdict on the proposals of each party would be sure lunacy, as it presupposes or rather completely ignores what the opinion of the public would be. The election isn’t just about who is Taoiseach or how many bums each party gets to seat around the cabinet table, but it is about whose ideas the public favour more.