The boards of British big business are a closed shop. Though women make up 46 percent of the UK’s economically active population — and do as well as, if not better than, their male counterparts throughout school, higher education, and into middle management, just 12.5 percent of FTSE 100 boards are made up of women.

Today, a government-commissioned review panel (led by a man, former trade minister Mervyn Davies) published its recommendations for tackling the problem. Central to the proposals is the recommendation that FTSE 100 companies aim to have women make up 25 percent of their boards by 2015. It eschewed recommending company quotas enforced by government legislation, as has happened in countries like Norway, saying that the majority of women it surveyed did not favour them. Business groups also object to quotas, arguing they risk a situation where the best person for the job might not get it. This is despite the fact, as the authors of Davies report argued, that there are plenty of well-qualified women for these positions who are simply overlooked because of an opaque, old-boys’ network attitude to recruitment.

The previous UK government loved reviews and inquiries – and the new one is little different. From corporate governance, to pensions, to the structure of banks, those in Westminster relish a report, preferably one packed full of important-sounding recommendations but which compel no one to do anything. That’s because, very often, the problem being tackled is not one that can be easily or neatly solved with legislation or a slap on the wrist.

The government’s review into female representation on the boards of big business is a case in point. The panel, led by former trade minister Mervyn Davies, met on Monday to discuss final recommendations for increasing the number of female board directors, with quotas mooted as one option. Its report is due out soon. But quotas are highly unlikely – for the simple reason that business does not like them.

Poker, chess, chicken. Pick whichever analogy you like: there’s a high stakes game being played in Irish politics and it’s not a game their international partners much like. Since Ireland said on Sunday it would be asking for help from the EU and IMF –  little more than  two days ago, though it seems like a lifetime — the pieces of the political game have moved almost without cease. Ironically, though, the net result may be little different to what was forecast before the tumultuous events of the past 48 hours: a four-year austerity plan outlining 15 billion euros in savings, a by-election Fianna Fail are set to lose, the harshest budget on record on December 7, and an election in early 2011.

It started with the government’s bailout appeal. What should have led to a few weeks of EU/IMF negotiations was immediately overshadowed by the surprise move of the junior coalition party, the Greens, who stunned voters – and, it appears, their partners Fianna Fail themself, itself, when it announced it would not continue to be part of the government once 2011 budget measures were implemented.