The tumultuous events of the last week have seen more paranoia, depression and anxiety from fear mongering than, as Pat Rabbit put it,’ the Civil War’. What upset our national psyche more than any other point recently was the idea of a loss of sovereignty. But what are the facts, and if faced with a worst-case scenario, to what degree can the EU and the IMF erode national sovereignty by dictating domestic fiscal policy?

The Bonds –The state issues state bonds, basically an IOU when it needs money, to sell to investors in the market. The markets decide ratings based on the state’s perceived ability to pay the loan back. We had an AAA rating until recently, meaning we paid around three percent interest on the IOUs. Recently, the interest rate reached nine percent. If this uncertainty in our ability to pay back IOUs continued until next year, when we need to issue bonds again in order to raise money, then the interest rate would weigh down our economy and our ability to grow out of recession.

The ECB – We should never forget that the low interest rates imposed by major European states on the ECB in an effort to boost their economies earlier in the decade helped the credit bubble expand in Ireland. When Ireland should have increased interest rates in an effort slow down borrowing and deflate a property bubble during the years leading up to 2007 it could do nothing.

The ECB kept control of our interest rates and naturally favoured the German economy over ours. Similarly, because of the Euro being under the control the ECB, Ireland cannot lower the value of currency in an effort to ease loan repayment and make exports more competitive. To completely blame the government for the bubble and the failing banks would be wrong.

The IMF – An institution formed to offer the low interest rate loans and the technical expertise to drag an economy out of recession and any threat of a state defaulting on its debts. In Greece the IMF offered the loan the state needed to keep running at a rate the bond markets would never have offered. However, in return for the money the IMF gives out every quarter, it attaches detailed clauses ranging from tax reform and cutting benefits and to cutting health care and tearing up trade union agreements like our Croke Park Agreement.

It does not have to answer to the people in democratic elections and governments are forced to implement proposals. The IMF would however offer more experienced technical assistance to officials in the Department of Finance who have already showed enough ineptness.

The EU – The figure of €80,000,000,000 is mindboggling and still does not cover the amount of debt we must already pay interest on. For a population of four million it represents about €18,000 of debt for each person living in Ireland and this does not include interest.  For the EU this number is just a drop in the trillions of euro floating around the European financial systems. What worries the EU most, and has led to the recent pressure on Ireland being forced into this loan, is that the threat of an Irish default, coupled with an inability to raise money to finance ourselves, could have led to a domino effect with Portugal, Spain and Italy following our lead.

EU finance ministers are terrified of the markets forcing up interest rates in other member-states who, similarly to Ireland, have implemented austerity measures, offered bank guarantees and did all they were told to do and still the markets have punished.

Loan scenarios – So what’s happening with this loan of €80 billion? Best case scenario is it would only act as buffer in the state coffers which would ease markets into offering us lower interest rates on our bonds when we go to them next year. If rates still have not come down to levels around the four percent interest rate then we would probably dip into the €80 billion fund. However, in principle this loan may be given back by mid-2011 if we can sell bonds at a decent rate. This is the best case scenario however this depends entirely on

1)   Our ability to implement austerity measures to bring state spending in line with the tax-take

2)   For a stable government with a large majority to take power when elections take place next year

3)   For the world economy to recovery with a firm plan in place to increase exports in innovative technologies relative to where global demand will grow.  For example, an economic plan focusing on a growing green economy.

Protests would only harm the government’s ability to implement cuts which would be a lot better than what the IMF would offer. Let me make one point clear, no matter how bad you may feel this government has been, the IMF and EU will not offer an easier or faster road to recovery.  People are angry with the government but the Irish-made budget has to pass before an IMF-made budget is forced. Elections will be called sometime after the New Year because to be honest who wants a politician on your doorstep at Christmas. The best way to show anger is to vote then, not to protest now.

The recent blood ban campaign in UCC has been a powerful reminder to us all of the inequalities in society that have managed to survive even to this modern day and age.  It teaches us that we still have a long way to go in terms of achieving a country where people of all sexual orientations can contribute equally to important causes. Understandably, the Irish Blood Transfusion Service’s (IBTS)  outright, lifelong ban on men who have sex with men(MSM)  donating blood has been a cause of much hurt and indignation among the gay community  in Ireland. It’s not limited to Ireland though as there is a similar ban in places such as Britain. Simply put, many view it as discrimination based on poor logic and questionable evidence.

To better understand the issue, let’s start by looking at the ban’s origin. It first came about during the early 80s when the understanding of AIDS was still within its infantile stages. When the rapid spread of the disease became apparent, MSM were identified as being the group with the highest risk of HIV infection. A blanket ban on MSM donating blood was implemented as an attempt to stem the spread of the disease through blood transfusions. Given that tests for HIV were unavailable when the ban was put in place, it’s easy to see the rationale behind cutting out the group they perceived as highest risk of infecting people who receive transfusions.

This is all very well as a measure acted upon during the early 80s but almost three decades have passed since then. Groundbreaking advances in microbiology and biochemistry mean that we now have screening tests for diagnosing a blood sample with HIV and other pathogens with an accuracy of around 97-99%. This combined with much more advanced contraceptive measures and sexual health awareness would naturally lead one to expect that the lifelong ban on MSM donating blood would be lifted. This is obviously not the case.

The susceptibility to infection of one group of people compared to another is a contentious issue. It’s not my area of knowledge and not something I will discuss within this article. However, it is baffling to many as to how the IBTS can continue to impose an outright ban on MSM donations given that the degree of accuracy of screening that each blood donation undergoes significantly reduces the chance of infections being spread via transfusions. Detection of the virus is more difficult during the first ten or so days after infection and it is for this reason that other high risk groups such as those who’ve had sexual relations with someone known to have HIV or within the prostitution industry are given a one year period in which they cannot give blood.

This safety measure is fine but MSM are not privy to the same protocol. Instead any man who has had anal or oral sex with another man, whether or not a condom was used and whether or not they have been tested several times for the virus and been shown to be safe, are banned from donating blood for life. This process does not take into account the widely varying sexual lifestyles of MSM and instead lumps all of them into a damaging, overly-promiscuous stereotype. Of course there is the risk that a blood donation from an MSM may surpass the screening and infect another person but this can be said of every other group, high risk of infection or not. Yet the ban remains for one group and one group only.

A standard risk assessment for people of all sexual orientations needs to be put in place. Countries such as Italy, Spain and France have introduced such procedures. This has led to safe and maximised supply of blood. In Ireland and Britain, a huge amount of potentially lifesaving blood is completely lost due to an illogical system based upon falsified stereotypes.

The situation as it stands inevitably leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many as the criteria for donating is clearly discriminatory. The recent efforts of the UCC’s LGBT community to petition against the ban are admirable and a necessary message to the IBTS. They must know that the people of Ireland will not simply lie down and allow such inequality to go unchallenged. As for when things will change, it’s difficult to make predictions. Perhaps when the act allowing civil partnerships comes into effect either late this year or early next year, some of the major legal issues within the gay community can be allowed to finally rest and medical issues such as this can take more precedence. Also, with procedures such as chemical treatment of blood to kill contaminants on the rise and the efficiency of such procedures improving, a lift on the ban may well be on the horizon within the next few years.

When tackling a deficit crisis as large as the one we now face we should look outside our own national bubble and view how other European states have managed. Our biggest question now is how best to structurally reform our finances without killing potential future growth and in a way that can lower our interest rates on the bond markets. Equally important is the ability to demonstrate to the markets an ability to carry out these reforms without mass strikes or political turmoil. For the interest rate to drop, the government must not only sell its austerity package but also its own ability to implement it.

The bond markets thrive on statistical data and for the rate to drop before we borrow again next year we would need to offer detailed information on budgetary reform, ambitious multiple-year plans and precise figures on intake and losses. All this means nothing without the ability to ensure the markets that these cuts will then be implemented. So far the markets are understandably worried with a Minister of Finance that has continuously and grossly understated the level of deficit; also, the fact that reform plans have still not been outlined and will remain so until after the by-election and in full on December 7^th.

Another key component in selling this package to the bond markets is the political capital of an executive to implement reforms. A need for a new course, away from the abyss of bankruptcy, the IMF and executive exclusion from the EU is accepted by opposition parties but in the austerity package the government coalition must not only satisfy them and the markets but also the Irish people, unions and their own backbenchers. If the measures are to have any hope of successfully implementing structural reform, before the IMF does, they need to balance the needs of all concerned and not fall from power.

Ireland is not alone in the need for structural reform, although our case is more acute. Our closest neighbours to the east, in the UK and France, and to the west in the US, are also in the process of huge reforms with massive social implications. Dealing with the deficit has led to deep cuts in the UK, pension reform in France and the rather easier option of printing more money in the US. The UK seems to have sold its austerity package to the markets and the public. This contrasts with France and the US in that the public has seemed somewhat willing to accept social and fiscal reform without major social upheaval.

The secret is that in the UK, (although it can be argued that David Cameron, as a newly elected PM, carries more political capital to implement reforms) many say that it was his ability to sell these reforms that maintained relative social stability. The Conservative/Lib-Dem alliance cleverly coupled the unpopular idea of spending cuts with the more accepted idea of the need for smaller government and rebranded budget cuts into the concept of ‘Big Society’ which gives supposed power to the people and forms community spirit. Ed Miliband himself described the idea as an attempt to glorify increased hardship on the poor and vulnerable. However the sale has worked and the UK is now seen by many economists as being on the way to recovery. In stark contrast to this we see huge social upheaval in France and the US.

The French Government’s austerity plan, centering on pension reform, has encountered huge opposition from French society symbolised in the strikes. Although a culture of protest exists in France the scale and intensity of these protests was huge. In the French case, cuts implemented to deal with the deficit were not sold to the French people but rather forced.  In the US the Tea Party movement and the recent swing in electoral support (especially after the passing of ‘Obamacare’) indicates that spending your way out of a deficit can equally be as powerful a mechanism in forcing the public react. Tackling the deficit is the number one binding force of the movement. The ‘great communicator’, Obama has been attacked for not selling his message and the logic behind economic measures taken. The international community has also attacked US fiscal policy and Obama has failed to garner international support which has led to his fall from the top of Forbes Most Powerful People in the World list. Like Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy have passed their reforms but unlike the PM they have not sold austerity in a way that would have made society more accepting.

Marketing and perception have a vital role in sales. Brian Lenihan must now sell something to the Irish people that nobody wants; but there are signs of hope. Firstly, the EU will not let the Irish State fail; secondly, the Irish people realise the magnitude of what faces us, and most importantly Fine Gael and Labour would rather see Fianna Fáil and the Greens implement the deepest cuts in Irish history rather than they. This four-year plan will have to be the mother of all sales. Brian Lenihan must not only sell it to the markets but to the ECB, to coalition ministers and supporting independents, to the opposition parties who carry through the cuts, to the unions and to lastly to the people. If one of these does not accept the measures then the IMF will probably be here by Christmas.

Liu Xiabo is serving an eleven-year prison term in China. He is the recipient of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize last month, in recognition of ‘his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China’. Officially, the crime for which he was imprisoned was “spreading a message to subvert the country and authority”; however, in reality he co-authored a document calling for freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and democratic elections. These are all things we take for granted in our western democracies, in China however, calling for such fundamental rights carries the threat of incarceration or worse.

The selection of Liu Xiabo was met with outrage from Chinese government, followed by complete censorship of the story.  Both Liu Xiabo and Nobel Peace Prize were blocked by Chinese search engines on the day the story broke, effectively cutting off any chance at public awareness of the award.

Freedom of speech is a core democratic ideal. It is also one of the most important ones, especially in a political context. Freedom of speech is freedom of dissent, allowing the people to voice their concerns and discomforts without consequence.

The recent Irish blasphemy law introduced a penalty of up to €25,000 for anything considered ‘grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion’ constitutes a dangerous encroachment on a fundamental, constitutionally protected right that allows subjective ideas of offence to trump an objective and vital liberty.

Consider the Islamic Republic of Iran, where eighteen-year-old Ebrahim Hamidi faces execution for lavat, or sodomy. Ebrahim is in fact, straight, but he was convicted under ‘judge’s knowledge’, a loophole that allows for subjective judicial rulings, even when no conclusive evidence is present. Ignoring for a moment, the heinous miscarriage of justice that is his sentencing and conviction, the fact that sodomy is a crime punishable by death is horrendous. This kind of legislated homophobia is a perfect example why separation of church and state is vital for fair and judicious government.

Adultery is punishable by execution in Iran, and is a charge often levelled against rape victims, citing sexual activity out of wedlock as sufficiently criminal behaviour to warrant execution.  The punishment of both of these ‘offences’ constitutes a clear and repulsive attack on the rights of the LGBT community and women – who suffer most under the law regarding adultery.

Even at home we cannot afford the luxury of considering ourselves much better. Legally, LGBT relationships are still considered second-class, with couples forced to accept ‘separate but equal’ civil partnerships. Despite a 2008 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights giving same-sex couples the right to adopt a child they cannot currently do so under Irish law.

Only married, same-sex couples or single applicants (regardless of sexuality) may adopt a child. In addition to this, the IBTS refuses to allow openly gay men who have admitted to ever engaging in sexual activity with other men to give blood, citing a need to ‘protect the blood supply’ as reasonable cause to allow baseless homophobia to dictate policy.

In this country we still deny women their basic reproductive rights. Abortion is illegal, except in cases where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. This is patronising, legislated subjectivism, interfering with the objective right of a woman to make her own decisions in regards to her own body.

It is imperative that we, comfortable with our supposedly constitutionally protected rights, do not become too complacent. We do not have to struggle for the basic freedoms brutally denied to so many, and we must be careful not to trivialise what others fight so diligently for. We must remember to be constantly vigilant in our pursuit of a better, more legitimately democratic society. It is vital to continually expose and condemn human rights abuses wherever we can, but even more important to examine ourselves when doing so.

Cast your mind back to the Local and European elections in June 2009 when a big change in voting patterns happened. FF who scored 41.6% in 2007, scored 25.4% in the locals, losing an MEP with 24.1% in the Euros. FG became the biggest party for the first time with 32.2% but also lost an MEP with 29.1% in the Euros. Labour had its best ever local election result with a national average of 14.7% of the vote (compared to its general election 10.1% tally).

Three MEPs were the result of a 13.9% euro vote, an average brought low by bad polling in the Connaught/Ulster wastelands. Sinn Fein with its vote down managed to hold its number of councilors on 7.4% but in a bizarre reversal lost their sole MEP though the national eurovote increased to 11.2%.  The Greens stared annihilation in the face with only 3 councilors returned nationally on 2.3%, worse yet all their Euro candidates failed to even retain deposits on a national average of 1.9%.

Others including independents scored 18% up 0.7% which suggests the PD vote largely returned to FF and FG. In the Euros ‘Others’ scored an impressive 19.7% but it was Socialist Joe Higgins and Liberal Regionalist Marian Harkin that were bound for Brussels rather than the conservative naysayers Ganley and Sinnott.

If those polls raised an eyebrow, then the MRBI poll in May delivered electro shock therapy. FF 17%, FG 28%, and Labour at 32%, Sinn Fein 9% Greens 3% and others 11%. FF as the 3^rd party was surprising, but Labour as the biggest party, was a step too far for some FG stalwarts and a putsch against the leader who delivered the Fine Gael revival was conceived and executed by the younger front bench members.

Sadly their candidate was an economist who couldn’t count because Enda Kenny survived, and the new look youthful frontbench was cast aside by older, loyal faces. We entered a summer of silence. But that ended and like waiting at a bus stop, the long wait is greeted by the arrival of not one but several buses. In one week in September, we got 3 polls.

First came the TV3 poll with FF 22% FG 30% Lab 35% Sinn Fein 4%, Greens 2% and Others 8%. Though FG had gained 2 points, Labour increased their lead and Fianna Fail reduced the gap between themselves and the Blueshirts. Media rumblings began again about Kenny’s leadership which even the REDC poll a few days later was unable to relieve. REDC put FG on top again at 31% with FF on 24%,  Labour 23% Sinn Fein 10%, Greens 3% and Others 9%, but the murmurings continued.  Not 3 days later MRBI published their poll FF 24%, FG 24%, Lab 33%, Sinn Fein 8%, Greens 2%, and Others 9%.

The polls suggest that when Eamon Gilmore started talking about a Labour Taoiseach the Irish public took him seriously, but not Enda Kenny who may not outlast Brian Cowen as leader of his party if this trend continues.  They also suggest the Greens don’t have a future. This has resulted in parties and press rounding their fire on Gilmore and Labour, and explains why Fine Gael have embarked on provoking an election at all costs before Labour sustains its gains and Gilmore eclipses Kenny as prospective Taoiseach. Part of which has seen them withdraw from the time honoured agreement to pair votes. It also explains why the Greens are touting a National Government as the solution to the country’s ills.

We have since been treated to another REDC Poll, this had less fanfare but only because shockwaves are still reverberating from last month’s trio.  REDC had been the most conservative of polls with FF not falling below 23% and vying with Labour over 2^nd place while FG had a clear lead. But this latest poll reflects the trend of the others. FF dropped 6 points to 18%, Labour up 4 points to 27%, FG in the margin of error at 32%, as are Sinn Fein 9%, the Greens 4%  and Others 10%.  A clear picture emerges; FF will be in 3^rd place.  The decision at the next election is will FG or Labour be the biggest party? Will the Taoiseach wear blue or red?  Can the Greens survive?  Can Sinn Fein make a breakthrough after stagnating the last 3 years? Will the others be the ‘independent’ FF gene pool TDs or the micro-left parties?

While the polls don’t answer these questions, we can divine the entrails. The real result will be in the battle that lies ahead, but as we have been waiting for 3 bye-elections to be held the last year, Jim McDaid resigns and the High Court decides against the government all within 24 hours. Looks like a bus is on the way, or do I see three more coming behind it?

You can hear Mark Khan in ‘The Week That Was’ every Friday @ noon on Campus Radio 98.3fm or www.ucc.ie/ccr

Monday 1st saw another excellent Philosoph debate. The motion was “That this house believes alternative medicine does more harm than good”.  Paul O’Donoghue of Irish Skeptics and Tom Cotter of the UCC Biochemistry Department argued for the proposition while the opposition saw Orla Broderick, a homoeopathist, and David Tredinnick, a British MP, head the opposition.

“Alternative” medicine is an umbrella term for unconventional medicine lacking in empirical evidence to support it’s effectiveness. It has been used both without and in conjunction with conventional medicine. It includes practices like chiropractics, acupuncture and homeopathy. Homeopathy works on the principle that water has memory. Homeopaths argue for the Law Of Similars which tells us that substances which cause similar symptoms to a disease when used in large amounts will actually cure that disease when used in extremely small amounts.

Supposedly, the symptoms caused by the “artificial” source expel the symptoms of the natural sickness by providing the body with the “vital force”, whatever that is. It is a mystical assertion and refuted constantly by science and skeptics. The homeopathic remedies are extremely diluted and may or may not have any of the original symptom-inducing substance left; which leaves just water!

In most cases, homeopathic remedies and other alternative medicines are completely harmless. No more harmless than drinking a glass of water. The opposition to the motion on Monday night seemed to be divided into three categories. Those who believed with full conviction that homeopathy and other forms of alternative medicine work, those who weren’t convinced but felt there may be something to it from the anecdotes given by Broderick, Tredinnick and other speakers from the crowd and those completely unconvinced; this category tended to argue that it’s practice was harmless by nature. They accepted the placebo effect as being the source of any patients’ feeling of well-being.

The proposition had little chance of convincing the die-hard homoeopathists in the crowd. A good effort was made to argue for the votes of those who were intrigued and unsure what to think of the anecdotal evidence on behalf of alternative medicine. Convincing the third category was another matter however. There are two angles I can see which the proposition could have countered with. Each of these was touched on by at least one speaker proposing the motion.  However, much of the proposition speakers chose to continually attack the pseudo-scientific basis of alternative medicine and tended not to aim their arguments at the category of people who believed that in its harmless, if ineffective nature.

The first is looking at scenarios where alternative medicine has been directly linked to endangering human life and health. For example, homoeopathists in the practice advising people against receiving immunization vaccines, claiming that vaccines actually cause more fatal sickness than that which they are meant to protect against. A study conducted in London in 2006 found an alternative medicine practice to be prescribing garlic and vitamins as a ward against malaria. A case in England in 2004 saw a homoeopathist advise a woman to stop taking medication for her heart condition and advised her instead to consume homeopathic remedies. The patient died within days of heart failure linked to treatment discontinuation.

While an everyday homeopathic remedy may be harmless, the capacity we give these self-professed mystics to prescribe what they like to patients and call it medicine is where the true danger lies. Something which far outweighs the good that comes from letting gullible people think that water or garlic has cured them of a common cold.

The other point to have argued is the erosion of trust in science which comes with, and spreads due to, such practices.  In my own view, ignorance only ever leads to more ignorance. When we allow our choices to be based on mystical principles and not on falsifiable, testable, repeatable and quantitative evidence, we damage not only our own rationality but the rationality of impressionable people we meet along the way. In the case of alternative medicine, not only are the lies and delusions of sellers of these products damaging to the individual’s trust in science, a self-correcting process unlike alternative medicine, these lies and delusions will only spread. Before you know it, more and more cases of serious illnesses will pop up due a lack of trust in modern medical science. A single drug of which may go through 15 years testing before it’s able to touch the market. To ensure its effectiveness.

Both these arguments were brought up but the problem was that little of it was tailored towards the more sceptical members of the opposition, in relation to harms versus benefits. If it had been so, perhaps the proposition could have pressed home the advantage and the result may have been different. However, the opposition had a clear majority and walked away victorious.

Seeds of change were sown in the early morning hours when the banking bailout was conceived by a sleep free finance minister whose main expertise was law and not economics. A guilt free cabal of bank directors whose main expertise was deceit not accountability added fuel to the fire.

But something was born in Ireland, something that not even the shameless charlatan Senator Ivor Callelly’s high court case can change, whatever its outcome. People expect more of their politicians, and they might even get it if they vote accordingly.

The wide variance between an Irish Prime Minister bought and paid for by the golden circle who brazenly flaunted his ill gotten wealth compared to the Swedish minister who resigned because they didn’t buy a TV license is as stark as it gets and shames us all in this country.

Yet this last few months has seen a new political culture in Ireland, where there is a decent chance that instead clinging on, politicians are starting to do the decent thing, resigning.

If for nothing else, we will remember a journalist on a 9 month vacation to the Dail quite fondly for starting a new culture in Irish politics. On 8^th February George Lee resigned his seat due to being excluded from policy making and being cold shouldered, Fine Gael sources claimed he just couldn’t hack it in real politics, but the reality of life as a backbencher was best summed up by Lee “I have to confess that I have virtually no influence, no input whatsoever.’

Four days later on 12^th February Senator Deirdre De Burca resigned due to ‘FF running rings around the Greens’, the Green Party began an exercise in damage limitation claiming it was because she did not get a position in the team of the new Irish EU Commissioner Maire Geoghegan Quinn. But people both inside and outside the party refused to join the attacks, instead hailing her as a great campaigner with great integrity.

Six days later on the 18^th February Willie O’ Dea was forced to resign from the Ministry of Defense for perjuring himself in an affidavit over a slander case against a Sinn Fein councilor about brothels. It is thought in many circles that the Greens demanded his head so they could maintain they still have integrity after de Burca’s damning resignation letter.

Five days later on 23^rd February Trevor Sargent resigned as Junior Minister when it is revealed he wrote a letter which could be construed as judicial interference, many claimed the letter was leaked from a Fianna Fail source to get revenge for the Green stand on Willie O’ Dea the week before, or as one FF TD was reputed to have said; “we put a bit of manners on them”.

Unlike O’ Dea who made a song and dance and had to be pushed hard to go, denying his words until it was played back in evidence, Sargent was credited with going quickly, of his own volition with the minimum of fuss accepting he acted inappropriately, reinforcing his own integrity which he displayed 2 years earlier when he stepped down as party leader

Two weeks later on the 8^th March the Minister for Arts Martin Cullen resigns from the Cabinet and his Dail seat due to medical advice. Though many pundits put it down to the litany of scandals over the years while he was minister in various departments, it is a fact that Cullen was involved in a car accident years ago and had suffered from back problems since.

It seemed like we might be in a new world after the spring clean of the Dail and Cabinet, but in the autumn we had the fall back into old ways, with the announcement that 3 of the 22 female deputies in the Dail would not be contesting the next General Election.  On the 30^th August Olwyn Enright announced her retirement at the next election due to family commitments, leaving room for her husband Joe McHugh TD to be the only man about the house (of parliament) while she went back to look after the kids.

On ability or chance of promotion this seems an odd choice considering she has served on the frontbench for 8 years, whilst he has yet to be appointed. A few days later on the 4^th September Liz McManus announced her retirement at the next election to make way for a younger, fresher candidate, or in other words her son who is a councilor in Bray. Then 2 weeks later on the 22^nd September Mary Upton announced her retirement at next election to make way for a younger, fresher candidate or in other words her nephew who is a Dublin city councillor.

After so much promise of change and a new culture in politics, the summer ended with a retreat back to male dynastic dominated politics, with all 3 female TDs standing back to support the political career of a male family member. Plus ca change, Plus c’est pareil.

You can hear Mark Khan in ‘The Week That Was’ every Friday @ noon on Campus Radio 98.3fm or www.ucc.ie/ccr