Letters to the Editor: Writer's take on voting for ‘marginal’ candidates is infantilising
picture: Inexplicably Political Militarism,' 'europe’s O'halloran Tim Has Embraced Says File Centre
She cautions voters against voting for candidates that might end up in “marginal” political groups in the European Parliament.
The implication is that voters who do not agree with the policies of the mainstream groupings somehow have an over-riding, patriotic duty to vote for mainstream candidates. This is necessary to prevent Ireland losing its “influence”.
It is the second time I have seen a long opinion piece in a national newspaper in the last few days trotting out this bizarre, essentially anti-democratic argument. It is a dog-whistle appeal to the old-fashioned, clientelist tradition of Irish politics.
The voters should not concern their silly little heads with policy.
If they are good little boys and girls, who do not ask any questions about anything more serious than potholes, maybe the politician might someday use his “pull” to swing a few crumbs from the rich man’s table toward the individual voter, or the voter’s locality.
It is condescending infantilisation of the electorate.
Some voters — probably the majority — are concerned about moves toward the militarisation of the EU, and are opposed to any attempts to abandon our neutrality.
Candidates who will fight to keep us neutral will no doubt be members of “marginal” groups, because the Europe’s political centre has inexplicably embraced militarism.
Voters understand that neutrality is about life and death, war and peace, things more important than the imagined “pull” and “influence” that our mainstream parties claim to have with Brussels.
With a relative lull in the Senior Hurling Championship before the provincial finals this weekend, I am reminded of the crucial person that is fundamental to every team — the manager.
Last week cannot have been easy for “high-profile” managers such as Liam Cahill, Henry Shefflin, and Davy Fitzgerald, who give just as much with the lesser media-profiled counties.
The level of scrutiny given to this trio, especially Shefflin, over the past week is unfair.
It is not cognisant of the fact that they manage in an amateur sport, demanding of professional standards in backroom team management and on-field performance.
It is easy to see from the demeanour and reactions of these managers that they are not “in it for the money”, an often unfair insinuation made about GAA county managers.
People who stand up to be counted in GAA county management do so knowing that the margins between success and failure are slim and sometimes flimsy. They are deserving of a more reflective level of appreciation for what they do.
I would like to mention the subject of means-testing allowances.
There was a unanimous recommendation from the social protection committee on their pre-budget submission in 2023 to establish a high-level official group, aimed at scoping out and developing a roadmap for the delivery of non-means-tested participation income for family carers and abolishing the means test completely by 2027.
I am acutely aware that means testing has always been a vexed issue. According to the committee, this case seems to be a compelling one — given the predicament that people are in.
One must not forget that people who are caring for others are reducing their career, because they can only work 18.5 hours.
These people are providing care, which means that it’s not falling onto the State.
I think that these great people who are caring for others should be fully supported by the State.
It’s my contention that the State should be doing everything in its power to actually help these carers, as opposed to putting them through the unnecessary bureaucracy of administration and red tape of means tests.
We see that care is so important in this country. We had the fall-out from the referendum, where people weren’t happy with the way it was being framed and it was looking like it had to be in the home.
The State was tacitly trying to step out of its responsibility, apropos to its duty to carers and to our vulnerable citizens.
There was a lot of that sentiment from the people who voted no in the referendum, as they quite rightly felt that the State should be doing everything in its power to help these carers.
Everyone wants to go to the Olympics, although it was too hard for me to get a position on the Australian Olympic team — even the support team.
The team will be accompanied by three baristas so they can feel at home, but there is competition for these positions as well.
I am starting to wonder if everyone has forgotten the purpose of the Olympics — friendly competitions between countries.
Fortunately, caffeine is no longer banned under the World Anti-Doping Association’s conditions — as it was from ‘84 to ‘04 — or our whole team could have been wiped out.
On the other hand, as one of many Australians addicted to my late morning coffee, I am not sure about them leaving given the apparent shortage of baristas.
Taoiseach, the HSE is in place to provide a service to the people of Ireland. To provide that service, certain staffing levels of frontline staff are required.
If those levels are not maintained, then “difficulties” are faced. That is common sense.
Everybody accepts that current frontline staff are working hard to maintain the services required/expected.
Common sense also dictates that, with failure to maintain staffing levels, the health of frontline staff will be affected.
Taoiseach, I ask: How many HSE frontline staff are currently on work-related stress leave?
How badly has their physical and mental health been affected by these shortages?
I would urge you Taoiseach, in the interests of the health and safety of both citizens and HSE frontline staff, to review this matter and direct the immediate lifting of the ban on appointments of HSE frontline staff.