Roisin Shortall resigns as junior minister

edanto · 28-09-2012 5:56pm

I wonder which areas did lose primary care centres because of this. Which areas got bumped off the list?

OMD · 28-09-2012 6:00pm

dvpower wrote: »

I'm a voter and I do care.

If I perceive that my area is getting screwed out of a Primary Care centre that it would otherwise have got, I care even more.

Really. So if you don't have a primary care centre that you can go to by the next election it will influence your vote? Fair enough. How did that effect your vote in the last election?

Anyway my point was not about being "screwed out of a primary care centre". It was the opposite. If your area got the promise of a primary care centre would that make you more likely to vote FG or Labour in the next election? This is the allegation that Reilly was looking after his own voters. I would be surprised if many people were so swayed. They offer very little except to the GPs working in them as they get shiny new premises and pay almost nothing/ actually nothing for them. Reilly is also trying to change this and make GPs pay more. Shorthalls plan would have made it easier for GPs to get away with paying very little.

dvpower · 28-09-2012 6:09pm

OMD wrote: »

Really. So if you don't have a primary care centre that you can go to by the next election it will influence your vote? Fair enough. How did that effect your vote in the last election?

I voted for a party that promised health reform, including a promise to build a network of Primary Care centres.

OMD wrote: »

Anyway my point was not about being "screwed out of a primary care centre". It was the opposite. If your area got the promise of a primary care centre would that make you more likely to vote FG or Labour in the next election?

It would be an important factor, yes. But only if I could trust the promise - for example if my area was earmarked for a centre using some kind of objective criteria and I didn't think it would be knocked off the list on the whim of a minister.

rockclover1 · 28-09-2012 9:02pm

My view is that roisin shorthall really shot herself in the foot here,asking to resign then without adequate discussion with her superior eamon gilmore decides to resign fully,and while he was in new york on business!hardly appropriate,very rash decison making i would say,its a ridiculous move from what could have been a person that could have changed things for the better..very foolish on her part

Bannasidhe · 28-09-2012 9:42pm

rockclover1 wrote: »

My view is that roisin shorthall really shot herself in the foot here,asking to resign then without adequate discussion with her superior rabbitte decides to resign fully,and while he was in new york on business!hardly appropriate,very rash decison making i would say,its a ridiculous move from what could have been a person that could have changed things for the better..very foolish on her part

Gilmore is the leader of the Labour Party not Pat Rabbitte and it was Gilmore who was in NY not Rabbitte.
Your 'view' is somewhat undermined when you can't get even basic facts corrects.

OMD · 28-09-2012 9:53pm

dvpower wrote: »

I voted for a party that promised health reform, including a promise to build a network of Primary Care centres.

The promise still stands. They have added extra to the original list, so if primary care centres is your thing you get even more.

dvpower wrote: »

It would be an important factor, yes. But only if I could trust the promise - for example if my area was earmarked for a centre using some kind of objective criteria and I didn't think it would be knocked off the list on the whim of a minister.

Other places were not knocked off.
Shorthall made a list of deprived areas in Ireland. Pretty pointless list but she felt that was a good job. As I said this is typical HSE thinking. No actual thought of "how can we deliver" . Shorthalls list includes areas that would never get a primary care centre. Fine they are now on a list. The people get a promise of a centre but that promise can never be realised. The land is not available and or the doctors are not available. I am astounded at the easy ride she is getting over this.

OMD · 29-09-2012 1:08pm

Shorthall was on radio this morning about this. She says Reilly gave her 15 reasons why her list needed to be changed. One thing he told her was that there should be no new public servants employed. GPs using the centres, and getting private income, by using public facilities should be expected to contribute more and to contribute to staff costs according to Reilly. Shorthall could not go for this as, according to her people had been given the expectation of getting public sector jobs. I mean FFS, what planet is this woman on? The last thing this health service needs is more public servants especially if employing these people will help increase the income of GPs. I mean it's only public money. Who cares if it is wasted?

expectationlost · 29-09-2012 4:53pm

the point of this list was areas that needed a government boost, and that other areas would have market demanded centres

any sign of the list from 2007 with swords and balbriggan near the top, nope.

rockclover1 · 29-09-2012 6:12pm

Gilmore is the leader of the Labour Party not Pat Rabbitte and it was Gilmore who was in NY not Rabbitte.
Your 'view' is somewhat undermined when you can't get even basic facts corrects.

NO.It doesnt undermine what i said,it was a small typo,get over it..

jumpguy · 30-09-2012 2:34am

OMD wrote: »

Why would Reilly want a GP practice in his area to benefit. Voters wouldn't care too much at not having a primary care centre (they are a load of nonsense really, but that is a separate issue). However, if a primary care centre was opened then that would be in competition with Reillys practice which would loose business.

Shorthall appears to have made a bit of an arse of deciding on the best areas. All she did was look at the most deprived areas. She doesn't seem to have used any thought as to how the centres would be rolled out and how they could improve healthcare. It sounds like a civil servant told her what to put in the report as her report has HSE/Health Board incompetence all over it. Producing reports that cannot be implemented.

We should be glad she is gone.

She commissioned a report to look for the areas most in need of a PCC. Then she went about actually trying to implement a report, which, god knows, is something many a previous government haven't bothered doing.

"All she did was look at the most deprived areas." Like, really, what else does one look for when allocating public health resources? You look at who needs it most. Rolling out the centres is an issue you deal with when you know where they're be rolled out, you don't just roll them out where it's easiest for the sake of it.

James Reilly is doing a terrible job as Minister of Health, and he must be one of the most disappointing cabinet ministers so far. MoH is always a losing position in my opinion, especially in a government with a Labour party in it - since you can't touch pay, you're just expected to do more with less. But he's taking all the soft options and for some reason just seems reluctant to go after the obvious drugs savings to be made. I wonder if there are any vested interests.

OMD · 30-09-2012 2:43pm

jumpguy wrote: »

OMD wrote: »

Why would Reilly want a GP practice in his area to benefit. Voters wouldn't care too much at not having a primary care centre (they are a load of nonsense really, but that is a separate issue). However, if a primary care centre was opened then that would be in competition with Reillys practice which would loose business.

Shorthall appears to have made a bit of an arse of deciding on the best areas. All she did was look at the most deprived areas. She doesn't seem to have used any thought as to how the centres would be rolled out and how they could improve healthcare. It sounds like a civil servant told her what to put in the report as her report has HSE/Health Board incompetence all over it. Producing reports that cannot be implemented.

We should be glad she is gone.

She commissioned a report to look for the areas most in need of a PCC. Then she went about actually trying to implement a report, which, god knows, is something many a previous government haven't bothered doing.

"All she did was look at the most deprived areas." Like, really, what else does one look for when allocating public health resources? You look at who needs it most. Rolling out the centres is an issue you deal with when you know where they're be rolled out, you don't just roll them out where it's easiest for the sake of it.

Making a list of economically deprived areas is pretty basic. We could do it here in boards in a few hours. Economically deprived is not the same as healthcare deprived. What she should have done is made a list of areas that needed healthcare facilities. This is not the same as "poor areas". Some deprived areas already have great healthcare facilities. Public money should go to areas of most need.
Labour promised 20 new primary care centres yet she only made a list of 20 areas. She acknowledged herself that they may not be able to build a centre in each area. Again this is stupid. To guarantee 20 being built the initial list should be at least 30.

I can go on and on.

John_C · 30-09-2012 3:02pm

OMD wrote: »

Making a list of economically deprived areas is pretty basic. We could do it here in boards in a few hours. Economically deprived is not the same as healthcare deprived. What she should have done is made a list of areas that needed healthcare facilities. This is not the same as "poor areas". Some deprived areas already have great healthcare facilities. Public money should go to areas of most need.
Labour promised 20 new primary care centres yet she only made a list of 20 areas. She acknowledged herself that they may not be able to build a centre in each area. Again this is stupid. To guarantee 20 being built the initial list should be at least 30.

I can go on and on.

I think the central point is different from this though. Shorthall and Reilly had different opinions on how to decide the locations and that's a normal part of politics and management.
The reason she resigned is because she thinks the Minister added some locations because they were in his own area, not because they were the best locations.

OMD · 30-09-2012 3:43pm

John_C wrote: »

I think the central point is different from this though. Shorthall and Reilly had different opinions on how to decide the locations and that's a normal part of politics and management.
The reason she resigned is because she thinks the Minister added some locations because they were in his own area, not because they were the best locations.

That's fine. I don't think that was the reason as I don't think there would would be many votes in it and it would hurt him financially.
But my point is more about Shortall doing a rubbish job. She is passing all the blame to Reilly yet she herself displays a poor sense of judgement and was doing a very poor job. It will be interesting to see how White does. My money is on him doing a far better job.

Sierra Oscar · 30-09-2012 4:15pm

OMD wrote: »

But my point is more about Shortall doing a rubbish job.

It is hard to do a good job when the senior minister blocks all of your initiatives - mostly due to the fact that he has to defer spending commitments because he failed to reign in the HSE budget on his watch.

In anycase the Sunday Times is reporting that some seriously damaging information is on the verge of being released which will vindicate Shortall and likely result in Reilly resigning and possibly end Gilmore's leadership of the Labour party. Reading between the lines it seems that the Times was going to publish the story today but had to defer it for now. Time will tell what the story actually relates to.

John_C · 30-09-2012 4:43pm

OMD wrote: »

That's fine. I don't think that was the reason as I don't think there would would be many votes in it and it would hurt him financially.
But my point is more about Shortall doing a rubbish job. She is passing all the blame to Reilly yet she herself displays a poor sense of judgement and was doing a very poor job. It will be interesting to see how White does. My money is on him doing a far better job.

Fair enough, I suppose we just have a different way of looking at it. I don't know enough to say whether Shorthall's competent or not but I think she's probably right when she says that Reilly's dishonest.

sparkling sea · 01-10-2012 11:17am

rockclover1 wrote: »

My view is that roisin shorthall really shot herself in the foot here,asking to resign then without adequate discussion with her superior eamon gilmore decides to resign fully,and while he was in new york on business!hardly appropriate,very rash decison making i would say,its a ridiculous move from what could have been a person that could have changed things for the better..very foolish on her part

Roisin Shortall is a very politically astute woman with many years of political experience. You can't be so naive as to think the timing of her resignation announcement wasn't planned to percision - it has inflicted as much damage and garnered as much publicity as it possible could have in the current rapidly changing news story climate. If Mr Glimore was in the country this wouldn't have been the case!

Eamonn Gilmore and Ms Shortall had several unsatisfactory (in Ms Shortall's opinion) discussions regarding the problems she was encountering. The lime light is again focused on Mr Reilly and allegation of improper conduct and corrupt practice.

Its hard for any politican to raise their head above the parapet - they have so much to lose - I hope a few more Labour politicans can find the same courage Ms Shortall did - someone needs to hold the new defacto FF government to account - I hoped it would be Labour, all hope had almost faded but you never know we actually have a few principled politicans in the Dail after all.

Hope springs eternal

ednwireland · 03-10-2012 8:30am

of course its not looking after your mates minister reilly, honestly it would be hard to beleive a word he says at the moment (or any politician for that matter)

A SUPPORTER of Health Minister James Reilly owns the site in the minister's constituency where a controversial health centre will be built.

Dr Reilly also used a property on the site as a general election campaign base, the Irish Independent has learned.

The revelation will heap further pressure on Dr Reilly to explain fully why he changed strict criteria on proposed primary care centres.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/james-reilly-backer-owns-controversial-primarycare-site-3248674.html

gets better

The site is owned by a Fine Gael supporter, Seamus Murphy, and one of his properties was used to promote Mr Reilly during an election campaign.

He said the selection of the Balbriggan site had absolutely nothing to do with him, and that it had been chosen by his predecessor, Mary Harney.

Two Labour MEPs have called for the resignation of Health Minister James Reilly on Twitter.

Labour MEP Nessa Childers said she had "grave concerns about his suitability in delivering positive and progressive health care".

Meanwhile, Labour MEP for the south Phil Prendergast claimed on Twitter that "this is the sort of politics that has brought us to ruin" and she said that she thinks Minister Reilly "should consider his position

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1003/reilly-primary-care-centre.html

surely reilly is tainted goods now, although as with harney whose going to do the job if its not him, dont see a queue of people wanting to be health minister

oh yes and a quick its all the last lots fault for good measure

oscarBravo · 03-10-2012 6:17pm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

...he has to defer spending commitments because he failed to reign in the HSE budget on his watch.

Out of curiosity, what should he have done differently?

If he were to resign and another health minister take his place in the morning, what would that new minister be able to do to force the HSE to stop overspending its budget that he hasn't?

hallelujajordan · 03-10-2012 6:57pm

ednwireland wrote: »

of course its not looking after your mates minister reilly, honestly it would be hard to beleive a word he says at the moment (or any politician for that matter)

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/james-reilly-backer-owns-controversial-primarycare-site-3248674.html

gets better

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1003/reilly-primary-care-centre.html

surely reilly is tainted goods now, although as with harney whose going to do the job if its not him, dont see a queue of people wanting to be health minister

oh yes and a quick its all the last lots fault for good measure

If this sequence of events had happened under a minister in the last government there would have been uproar (and rightly so !). .

New politics, my arse..

Shea O'Meara · 03-10-2012 7:23pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

If this sequence of events had happened under a minister in the last government there would have been uproar (and rightly so !). .

New politics, my arse..

Agreed, but I do like the lack of blind support for him, because under the last government we'd be reading posts such as, "He has not been proven to have done anything illegal. He is well within his ministerial remit to make such decisions....blah blah blah..." right up until the hookers body fell out from under his desk

Labour should threaten to pull out unless he resigns, as it's unlikely he'll get the sack.

hallelujajordan · 03-10-2012 7:39pm

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Agreed, but I do like the lack of blind support for him, because under the last government we'd be reading posts such as, "He has not been proven to have done anything illegal. He is well within his ministerial remit to make such decisions....blah blah blah..." right up until the hookers body fell out from under his desk

In this case we have neither outrage or defence . . I'm not sure that antipathy isn't even worse !!

Labour should threaten to pull out unless he resigns, as it's unlikely he'll get the sack.

Unfortunately, Labour seem to be rolling in behind him . . even willing to sacrifice a Junior Minister and another 5% of their Dail power in order to protect the CPA . .

ednwireland · 03-10-2012 8:30pm

lets start with the fine gael 2011 manifesto (section 17.1)

Reclaiming the Republic: Fine Gael wants to reclaim Ireland from the vested interests which have done such terrible damage to our nation. We want to build a new Republic in which the interest of the people and not those of the insiders are placed at the centre of politics in Ireland.

cant see much of that at the moment

Sierra Oscar · 03-10-2012 9:03pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what should he have done differently?

If he were to resign and another health minister take his place in the morning, what would that new minister be able to do to force the HSE to stop overspending its budget that he hasn't?

For starters, he should not have caved in on issues such as generic drug pricing with the pharmaceutical companies. Those savings were part of his budget predictions, yet he could not deliver. He made the commitment - it is up to him to deliver.

M three · 03-10-2012 9:15pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what should he have done differently?

If he were to resign and another health minister take his place in the morning, what would that new minister be able to do to force the HSE to stop overspending its budget that he hasn't?

make failing to come in on budget a sackable offense perhaps?
Then you might see some action among the useless cnuts that run the HSE

oscarBravo · 03-10-2012 9:25pm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

For starters, he should not have caved in on issues such as generic drug pricing with the pharmaceutical companies.

Has he caved on that? Last I heard it was still under discussion. Do you have a link?

oscarBravo · 03-10-2012 9:30pm

M three wrote: »

make failing to come in on budget a sackable offense perhaps?

As appealing as that idea might seem, it ignores the reality that that's not how things work in this country. There are a lot of things that could and probably should be done differently, but I'm talking about political realities; I'm wondering what another minister could do differently that would demonstrate a political ability that Reilly (and apparently his last several predecessors) apparently lacks.

I guess to put the question another way: how many individual ministers for health are we going to criticise for incompetence before we start wondering whether there's a bigger question than political incompetence to address?

Sierra Oscar · 03-10-2012 9:45pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Has he caved on that? Last I heard it was still under discussion. Do you have a link?

The savings, in the region of €100 million, formed a key part of Reilly's budget estimates. Those estimates were outlined during the last budget - and they apply to the here and now. Yet we have had no movement on the issue yet, and accordingly no savings despite the fact that such savings formed a part of the budget estimate for this financial year, which is now nearly over. In fact we know very little about the supposed savings - Reilly was meant to bring legislation before the Dáil before the recess yet we are still waiting for it to be enacted. In fact all we really know is that "discussions are ongoing". I wont be holding my breath.

In fact Reilly has achieved very little with the HSE so far, apart from causing a lot of confusion when he sacked the HSE board and managed to lose the confidence of Cathal Magee.

oscarBravo wrote: »

As appealing as that idea might seem, it ignores the reality that that's not how things work in this country. There are a lot of things that could and probably should be done differently, but I'm talking about political realities; I'm wondering what another minister could do differently that would demonstrate a political ability that Reilly (and apparently his last several predecessors) apparently lacks.

I guess to put the question another way: how many individual ministers for health are we going to criticise for incompetence before we start wondering whether there's a bigger question than political incompetence to address?

I understand where you are coming from - there is undoubtedly an underlying problem with the health service. We need to have a serious debate in regards the health service we want, and the health service which we can actually afford to have. That debate is not occurring at the moment. I am certainly not saying that the HSE is in crisis only because of the presence of Reilly, as I said there is a deeper underlying issue. However Reilly is not helping the situation. He is incompetent. He has now been office for 18 months, yet he has consistently failed to deliver on the promises that he made in opposition in regards what he would do differently if he was Minister. Enough is enough I say - he made key commitments that he simply cannot seem to deliver. His failure to deliver those commitments is resulting in frontline services being affected. Politicians should be held accountable for the promises they make.

M three · 03-10-2012 10:05pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

As appealing as that idea might seem, it ignores the reality that that's not how things work in this country.

Well then it should become a reality.
too much bull**** being talked about actions. People in control of budgets totaling billions of euro aren't accountable for anything.

If they were accountable and were sacked when they ran over budget you'd soon see a different set up.

Stop being so wishy washy about it.
Thats the problem with leadership in this country. Bunch of cowardly ****ers only interested in looking after themselves and their buddies

Roisin Shortall resigns as junior minister

Comments