A Bag full of bad News from the CSO

There was a massive fall of 25,000 in the number of people employed in Ireland in the twelve months to August this year, according to the latest Quarterly National Household Survey from the Central Statistics Office (CSO).

This is the first annual fall in employment recorded by the CSO since 1991. The figures also show that unemployment increased by 60% during the same period.

It is the first time for 25 years that this combination of a sharp fall in employment as well as a sharp rise in unemployment has been recorded in official figures.

Men are doing particularly poorly, with the number of employed males down by 32,000 over the year, while women are faring much better, with a gain of 7,000 in employment during the year.

This shows once again and very clearly that the whole structure of the Irish labour market is changing and shifting from a male to a female dominance. There are three reasons for that:
1) The fact that most women are still earning less than a male equivalent doing the same job. Thus it is cheaper for companies to employ women.
2) The massive increase in low-skilled service jobs, which are predominantly filled with women, while there is a clear decline in manufacturing and other skilled jobs, usually held by men.
3) The ever more aggressive implication of so-called 'equality', which over-proportionally favours women and makes it increasingly more difficult for men to get a fair treatment and a proper job.

The collapse in construction has been one of the biggest drivers of the trend, with the numbers of those engaged in house building down by 40,000 compared with this time last year.
Other areas of construction expanded a little, providing some cushion for builders with a gain of 14,000 jobs on infrastructure and commercial building projects.

Employment in manufacturing is down 9,400, while the contraction in the 'leisure industry' has made another 5,400 people redundant in hotels and restaurants over the 12-month period.

It appears that the job losses are more severe for Irish nationals, as the overall employment of foreign workers is unchanged from last year.
However, the flow of non-Irish nationals into the country has slowed down to just one-sixth of the level of last year. This is not surprising. We were only attractive for migrant workers - most of them from eastern Europe - as long as there were more jobs than we could fill ourselves and more money than anywhere else. In fact, I expect that a good number of Poles will return home for the Christmas and New Year celebrations and not come back, because while Ireland is now in rapid decline, Poland shows the first signs of economic flourish and is tipped to be the next boom country in Europe.

The Emerald Islander

Most new Jobs are for Women

Women have been more than twice as successful as men in finding a job in the Irish labour market over the past year. According to the latest Quarterly National Household Survey from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) in Dublin, new jobs for women were responsible for almost 70% of the growth in employment.

The CSO reports that a total of 66,800 new jobs were created in the Republic of Ireland during the analysed 12-months period ending last November. However, the picture is not as positive as it might look at first sight.
More than half of the new jobs offered only part-time employment, and 60% of them resulted from a surge in self-employment (which is encouraged and promoted by several government agencies and the Department of Social and Family Affairs).

In the same time period the number of men employed in Ireland fell by almost 10,000. This is the alarming part of the statistic, as it shows that the number of traditional jobs for Irish men, mostly in manufacturing and transport, is still in a steady decline.
Long-established Irish businesses have closed over the past few years - even during the boom time of the "Celtic Tiger" - or transfered their manufacturing jobs to the low-wage countries in the so-called "third world". Despite the happy sunshine talk from the government, Ireland is losing its competitiveness, and subsequently many skilled workers lose their job.

Many of the new jobs created - often with massive public announcements and huge PR - are in fact only low-paid part-time positions, predominantly in retail, service and food businesses. They are specifically tailored for unskilled or low-skilled labour and prefer to employ women, who are much easier willing to take part-time jobs than men.

Even though the country is still awash with surplus money and most people think that we never had it so good, the clouds of economic decline have been gathering over Ireland already for the past three years. The recently published employment data from the CSO underline this trend with clear figures, and it remains to be seen if the government will react in a positive way and make sure that there is enough employment for skilled Irish men (as well as for the women).

The Emerald Islander

Irish Cricket News I

Ireland missed out on a place at the 2009 ICC Women's Cricket World Cup when they lost to South Africa in the semi-finals of the qualifying competition. Despite Cecelia Joyce's unbeaten 43, the Irish were all out for 107, and the hosts scored their runs in 27.4 overs to win by seven wickets.

South Africa will now meet Pakistan in the final, but both will also play in the tournament proper next year. Pakistan beat the Netherlands by 98 runs in the second semi-final after bowling them out for just 68.

"Everybody is absolutely gutted," said Ireland Women's Captain Heather Whelan (photo). "We trained so hard, and for so long, in order to try to go to the World Cup in Australia, but it's not going to be. But we'll be here again in four years, looking for a place in the World Cup and we expect to make it next time."

Australia, England, India, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and the West Indies automatically qualified for the World Cup, which will be played in New South Wales in March 2009.

Ireland's men took part in their 2007 World Cup in the West Indies and achieved unexpected success, beating Pakistan and drawing against Zimbabwe. This performance has given Cricket in Ireland a great boost, which now also inspires the Irish women's XI.

Women in Politics

Hillary Clinton stated today that her show of emotion was "a deciding factor in her sweeping to victory" in the New Hampshire Primary. She admitted in a TV interview that the rare show of her feelings, when tears welled in her eyes after being asked a personal question, helped sway many voters, especially women.
Basking in the glory of defeating Barack Obama and confounding predictions that her presidential campaign was over after her defeat in the Iowa caucuses, the former First Lady said she hoped her tearful moment proved her sincerity.

I do not share Mrs. Clinton's view. Being the cold, controlled and manipulating person she is - and has been for a long time - it is much more likely that her tearful moment in New Hampshire was as much a calculated performance (which seems to have achieved the desired result) as all her other speeches, actions and public appearances have been.

There is no doubt that politics does often create emotional moments, and it is also a fact that by nature women tend to be more emotional than men. But it is rarely seen that an otherwise cool and composed politician breaks out in tears during a public session. Had this politician been a man, it would have had a negative effect, as the public perception would have been of a moment of weakness and losing control over himself. Men are not supposed to do that, especially when in high public office or aspiring to such.
But when a female politician starts weeping in public, it seems to earn her some sympathy, most of all from other women, who assume that it must be horrible for a woman to be in politics and that all is much harder for a female candidate. There is no business like show business...

Personally I do not appreciate weeping politicians, regardless of their sex, party or position. To be a leader is a difficult job with huge responsibilities, and one looks for strength, character and exemplary behaviour in such a person, not for streams of tears. And if crying is really all a leader (or one aspiring to become one) has to offer to the public, it is clear that this person is certainly not suited for the position.

But Mrs. Clinton did not only disappoint me with her New Hampshire tears. What I find much more disturbing is her triumphalist behaviour after she narrowly won the state, only 2% ahead of Barack Obama. Had she won with a margin of 10% or more, I could tolerate the way she went over the top in her victory celebration.

Having studied Psychology and being an avid observer of public figures and their body language, I am frankly shocked by Hillary Clinton's hysteria after the first modest win she gained in a very small state at the beginning of the Primary season.
This photo of her was taken in New Hampshire and carried today by a number of newspapers, including the British "Daily Mail" where I saw it first. By itself it says a lot more than words can do. One does not need to be a psychologist to recognise the expression of the proverbial "mad woman in the attic"... (but no President would have such an expression)
If there is still some common sense and decency left in the American voters, then this picture of Hillary should be a warning and make sure that she is not elected President.

For the benefit of those who don't know me personally I should say that I have nothing against women, and that I hold them actually in high esteem. This even extends to women in politics, as in my opinion the input of both men and women is needed to cover all aspects of a nation and in this way create a fair and balanced system of government.

However, when one looks at the track records of women who were not only involved in politics, but rose to high public offices, the result is rather disappointing and somewhat discourageing.
Of the women who hold or held significant government positions in the USA in recent times the only one that stands out as a positive example is Jeane Kirkpatrick, who was US Ambassador to the United Nations from 1981 to 1985. Even though originally a Democrat and supporter of the campaigns of Humphrey and McGovern, she accepted when President Ronald Reagan offered her the job.
Even some Republicans admit that Condoleezza Rice is by far the worst Secretary of State the USA have had in modern times, and the least qualified and suited for the position.
The first woman in charge of the State Department, Madeleine Albright, was only marginally better and for most of her period in office more the "token woman" than a real maker of great policy and shaker of diplomatic matters. She was, however, a lot more energetic and determined than former US Attorney General Janet Reno.
The greatest blunder in recent US history is also down to a woman, as it was Judge Sandra Day O'Connor, the first female Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, who handed the unelected George W. Bush the keys to the White House by casting her vote in his favour and thus creating the 5:4 Supreme Court decision by which Bush was declared the 43rd President.

Outside the USA women have actually been active in politics a lot longer and often much more than in America. It would be too complex to name and review them all, but let me give you just a few significant examples:
- Sirimavo Bandaranaike, three times Prime Minister of Sri Lanka and the world's first ever female Prime Minister, was directly responsible for creating the deep political rift between the majority Singhalese and the minority Tamil communities in Sri Lanka, which lead in 1983 to the country's civil war (that still continues today, even though now on a lower level of violence).
- Indira Gandhi, four times Prime Minister of India, was the least fair and democratic of India's Prime Ministers, creating much division and unrest in the sub-continent, especially among the minority communities (which led eventually to her assassination by her own body guard).
- Golda Meir, Israel's first - and so far only - female Prime Minister is often portrayed as a dear elderly lady and a mother figure of the Jewish nation. The reality was quite different from that image. Golda Meir personally sanctioned numerous acts of aggression against individuals and countries, including the clandestine vendetta campaign against Palestinian intellectuals (several of which were murdered by Israeli agents in Europe) in 1972. But more significant is that she always put the interests of her Mapai (Labour) party ahead of national interests. This led to a series of bad mistakes, the most serious of which nearly lost Israel the Yom-Kippur-War of 1973 (and could well have meant the end of the State of Israel).
- Margaret Thatcher is probably the best-known female politician, and many still refer to her with some reverence as the "Iron Lady". There is no doubt that she was tough and determined, and certainly a woman of conviction and exceptional courage. But she was also an arch-capitalist and enemy of the common people, and during her time as British Prime Minister (1979-1990) she systematically destroyed the natural social and economical structure of Britain's society. In a cynical comment on her ideology she even coined the phrase: "There is no such thing as society." (The fall-out of her policies still hampers Britain today and fills her prisons with thousands of uneducated criminals, hopeless drug addicts and up-rooted drifters with no perspective...)

Only one of the world's current female leaders has so far made a very positive impact in her own country as well as in world politics. She is Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand since 1999 (and the second woman to hold this office).

The jury on Angela Merkel, Federal Chancellor (Prime Minister) of Germany since November 2005, is still out. Although she has surprised some observers with a number of tough decisions, she lacks charisma, inspiration and other natural leadership qualities.

Sadly there are also outright failures among the world's female leaders, some of which are by now almost forgotten. They include the former Prime Ministers Edith Cresson (France), Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo (Portugal), Hanna Suchocka (Poland), Milka Planinc (Yugoslavia), Kazimiera Danute Prunskiene and Irena Degutiene (Lithuania), Tansu Ciller (Turkey), Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan), Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina Wazed (Bangla Desh), Beatriz Merino Lucero (Peru), Elisabeth Domitien (Central African Republic), Portia Simpson-Miller (Jamaica) and Claudette Werleigh (Haiti).
The wooden spoon for the worst performance of a female Prime Minister, however, must go to Kim Campbell, the first - and so far only - female leader of Canada. Having been previously the first female Minister for Defence, she succeeded Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister on June 25th, 1993. Feeling strong and confident, she soon called general elections for November 5th of the same year, during which her Conservative Party - in power since 1984 - was wiped out. All but two MPs lost their seats - including Ms. Campbell - and the Canadian Conservative Party disappeared into political oblivion.

Here in Ireland we have mixed experience with female politicians. In 1990 the independent human rights lawyer Mary Robinson, a clear outsider, was elected Ireland's first female President. During her seven years' tenure she changed the climate of domestic Irish politics forever, in fact so much that no political party even dared to nominate a man as her successor. She also had great influence internationally and became the United Nations' High Commissioner for Human Rights after stepping down as President in 1997.
Subsequently Mary McAleese was elected as her successor, and she is still President of Ireland (now in her second seven-year term, to which she was elected unopposed). It was the first time in history that an elected female head of state was succeeded by another woman.
On the other hand we also have the worst Minister for Health one could imagine. She is Mary Harney and was for a long time also (the first female) Tanaiste (Deputy Prime Minister), as well as Minister for Enterprise and Employment.

It is quite obvious that the sex of a person does not give any advantage or disadvantage for the holding of high political office. However, on an overall scale, the number of women who had a negative impact in politics clearly outnumbers those who made positive contributions. There are many reasons for that, but one is certainly that the structure of most political systems is more geared for male thinking and attitudes than for female intuition and emotions. It would be a mistake to see anything wrong in that, but equally there is no reason for standing still either.

Women can and do have important roles in all walks of life, and politics should be no exception. But the manipulative use of specifically female emotions for electoral purposes - as done by Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire - will neither earn respect, nor is it a guarantee of success (even if it has worked in New Hampshire). Only true skills, commitment and the ability to take responsibilities of the highest order make a real leader. I did have my reservations about Hillary Clinton before, but in New Hampshire she has demonstrated for me that she is not of the right mindset to lead a great nation, and in connection with it the Western world.

The Emerald Islander