[BlaasForRafa]

Originally Posted by dlofnep

No, it's not the crux of the matter. Fine Gael and Labour had a choice. They chose to hit the vulnerable and the weak, they chose to diminish our public services. They had an option of a tax rise on the most well off in society, one that would be on par with many of our european neighbours like France and Germany. They chose not to, and instead have continued to hit, and hit, and hit at the most vulnerable in society.

And for what? To pay off private debt.

Go ahead and defend this decision. People will die because of it. That's a fact.

Its easy enough to say that when Sinn Fein are not in power, they can rabblerouse from the sidelines to their hearts content. Cuts have to be made and expense where it dosen't make sense just won't cut it any more.

Taxes may well be increased but we need people to keep spending so as to keep the retail economy's head above water and taxing people to the hilt is not going to do that. Public expenditure is where the savings are going to have to be made and its not before time either, it should have been done years ago but FF were too irresponsible to do it.

[hinault]

Put money in to maintaining hospital services or put money in to a defunct and utterly corrupt banking system?

As the financial belt tightens these type of choices will face every citizen.

When they come to reduce your social welfare allowance/old age pension/funding for your local schools/funding for your local hospitals/cutting public transport/cutting special needs assistants.................because they've to put money in to our dead banks : these choices will have to be made.

Today it's Roscommon, tomorrow it will be a service in your area.

[hinault]

Originally Posted by Callan57

What part of 'we have no shagging money' do people not understand?
We are living on grace & favour thanks to the flagrant disregard for any reasonable cost evaluation & easy decision making in past years .... get used to it folks it aint going to end any time soon.

That said I remain hopeful that when all the vested interests have been tackled, and I include in that the 'I need my local hospital because I always had it' we may actually have a far better health service at the end of the day. I would far rather be admitted to a quality hospital with well trained, competent staff than to a mickey mouse glorified dispensary to be 'stabilised' and moved again & again.

Keep going James Reilly ... take the whole lot on & go for broke.
Sort it out once and for all & those who live longer, healthier lives as a result will thank you for your heroism.

We do actually have the money, it's just that the political classes (FF/FG/Labour/Greens) are tied to the notion that the banks and the repayment of their debts take precedence.

James Reilly won't sort out the Health Service either.

[GerM]

Originally Posted by eagle eye

Firstly I don't have these statistics and neither do you I'd imagine. So basically you are taking the words of a known liar by the name of James Reilly as fact.

Secondly on the news tonight on RTE1 they said that HIQUA found there were conerns with a number of hospitals of which Roscommon was one. They said then that the issues had been taken care of in all the hospitals except four and Roscommon was not one of those four.

Show me these statistics and then show me the breakdown of those statistics and I will listen you. Also remember that somebody is more likely in a highly populated area to go to a hospital with a minor ailment than is the case in a less populated area where they will often go to their gp first and in most cases they will not be sent on to a hospital.

HIQU made the recommendation that the hospital be scaled back! That comes directly from the director of the Galway/Roscommon Hospital Group. But I'm sure he's a liar too now? The report that the statistics are quoted from is yet to be released in its entirety so it is impossible to show you a link. I don't think it matters though as you've ignored every piece of information at hand. I'm sure you will be of the opinion that the report is simply fabricated and cannot be true.

The naivety on display is simply mind boggling. I now fully understand how we have people such as Healy Rae and Lowry in elected positions. I can only assume you've another agenda in relation to the situation because no individual could make any case for the full retention of these services with the facts at hand on the basis of logic alone.

Finally, it's worth mentioning that the chronic shortages in junior doctors have to be factored in. In recessionary times, the levels of quality or dropping more and more in these hospitals as staff attempt to secure positions in the bigger hospitals or, for a large number, move abroad for their experience. There are a number of staff in Roscommon who are trying to leave the hospital so the level of service there is only going to deteriorate regardless of the A&E service being fully retained or not.

[fatboypee]

Originally Posted by GerM

HIQU made the recommendation that the hospital be scaled back! That comes directly from the director of the Galway/Roscommon Hospital Group. But I'm sure he's a liar too now? The report that the statistics are quoted from is yet to be released in its entirety so it is impossible to show you a link. I don't think it matters though as you've ignored every piece of information at hand. I'm sure you will be of the opinion that the report is simply fabricated and cannot be true.

The naivety on display is simply mind boggling. I now fully understand how we have people such as Healy Rae and Lowry in elected positions. I can only assume you've another agenda in relation to the situation because no individual could make any case for the full retention of these services with the facts at hand on the basis of logic alone.

But you're not responding to eagle eye's point ? Statistics CAN and ARE regularly used and manipulated to suit the purpose of whomever wants to press a point. They are not JUST THERE. Inaliable, Unchallengable, infallible.

There are so many faults with your logic regarding the infaillability of statistical analysis I too find your naivety "mind boggling". Show the statistical breakdown to support your point of view and you may in return see some meaningful dialogue.

[GerM]

Originally Posted by fatboypee

But you're not responding to eagle eye's point ? Statistics CAN and ARE regularly used and manipulated to suit the purpose of whomever wants to press a point. They are not JUST THERE. Inaliable, Unchallengable, infallible.

There are so many faults with your logic regarding the infaillability of statistical analysis I too find your naivety "mind boggling". Show the statistical breakdown to support your point of view and you may in return see some meaningful dialogue.

As mentioned above, the report containing these statistics is not available at this point so we can only go on what is available at hand so obviously there's an element of fallability as there is in anything. Those in opposition to Roscommon being scaled back surely have some manner of numbers/statistics/facts to support their claims though? EE is not challenging them or counter arguing, he's simpy denying them and saying they're outright lies. Aside from the statistics though, HIQA recommended the scale back of services for Roscommon. That is not a statistic, it's a plain fact.

We're moving away from the point at hand however. There was nothing brave about Naughten's actions in recent days. His actions have achieved only one thing in reality and that is his re-election. If every TD was to base their efforts purely on pacifying their electorate, the country would be in an even worse situation than it already is.

[Padraig Mor]

Originally Posted by hinault

Put money in to maintaining hospital services or put money in to a defunct and utterly corrupt banking system.

Originally Posted by hinault

We do actually have the money, it's just that the political classes (FF/FG/Labour/Greens) are tied to the notion that the banks and the repayment of their debts take precedence.
.

It's amazing the way otherwise intelligent people fall for the hard left propaganda hook, line and sinker. Even if we didn't put a penny into the banks, we STILL have a c. €20 billion per year deficit (which hasn't budged BTW), not some magic happy pot of cash to put into services.

[fatboypee]

Originally Posted by GerM

....We're moving away from the point at hand however. There was nothing brave about Naughten's actions in recent days. His actions have achieved only one thing in reality and that is his re-election. If every TD was to base their efforts purely on pacifying their electorate, the country would be in an even worse situation than it already is.

The point is more important than this. It goes deeper, and in my own naivety I expect, no, stuff that, I DEMAND as someone who voted this government in, that my representative(s) carry out the promises that got them elected. In a very naive way I feel short changed if they don't. Its that simple. Your point on "pacifying their electorate", for me, is where it begins and it ends. THEY ELECTED him. He is there to represent THEIR views and THEIR interests first and foremost.

They did not elect him so he could say "hmmmmmm, I'm gonna ignore the consensus in my constituency because I SEE The bigger picture here". The elected him to represent them. He did so.

And I find the arrogance of people who vote in direct contradiction to the wishes of their electorate, absolutely appalling. Right, Wrong, indifferent, elected representative MUST act upon the consensus of those who elected them.

[GerM]

Originally Posted by fatboypee

The point is more important than this. It goes deeper, and in my own naivety I expect, no, stuff that, I DEMAND as someone who voted this government in, that my representative(s) carry out the promises that got them elected. In a very naive way I feel short changed if they don't. Its that simple. Your point on "pacifying their electorate", for me, is where it begins and it ends. THEY ELECTED him. He is there to represent THEIR views and THEIR interests first and foremost.

They did not elect him so he could say "hmmmmmm, I'm gonna ignore the consensus in my constituency because I SEE The bigger picture here". The elected him to represent them. He did so.

And I find the arrogance of people who vote in direct contradiction to the wishes of their electorate, absolutely appalling. Right, Wrong, indifferent, elected representative MUST act upon the consensus of those who elected them.

That, FBP, is where I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. If someone is better placed to make a call on my behalf then I have put them in place to make that call. If their belief has changed with the provision of further detail, I hope they do what they believe is best and not act on the demands of their constituents who are, for the vast majority, less educated on the matter. They should perform these actions regardless of gain or loss of personal benefit.

[ArmaniJeanss]

Originally Posted by fatboypee

The point is more important than this. It goes deeper, and in my own naivety I expect, no, stuff that, I DEMAND as someone who voted this government in, that my representative(s) carry out the promises that got them elected. In a very naive way I feel short changed if they don't. Its that simple. Your point on "pacifying their electorate", for me, is where it begins and it ends. THEY ELECTED him. He is there to represent THEIR views and THEIR interests first and foremost.

They did not elect him so he could say "hmmmmmm, I'm gonna ignore the consensus in my constituency because I SEE The bigger picture here". The elected him to represent them. He did so.

And I find the arrogance of people who vote in direct contradiction to the wishes of their electorate, absolutely appalling. Right, Wrong, indifferent, elected representative MUST act upon the consensus of those who elected them.

This is the fundamental conflict in out constituency system.

You see I elected my representatives to do what is best for the country on a national level - I'd be perfectly content if Burton & Varadkar never give Dublin West a thought for the next few years. I'll badger my local councillors about local issues (and trust me I do so.)

Whereas other voters seem to elect their representatives to be gombeens and parish pumpers, to represent the interests of County XXXX above all others. Its how we end up with JHR, Lowry and 'He Fixed The Roads' sketches on Savage Eye.
I despise this attitude so much.

[fatboypee]

Originally Posted by GerM

That, FBP, is where I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. If someone is better placed to make a call on my behalf then I have put them in place to make that call. If their belief has changed with the provision of further detail, I hope they do what they believe is best and not act on the demands of their constituents who are, for the vast majority, less educated on the matter. They should perform these actions regardless of gain or loss of personal benefit.

If someone is better placed to make a call on my behalf.....
Hope they will ?? This is YOUR TD, whatever, the person who represents YOU. They are not doing their job if they do not present facts they have gained that directly influence their decision to vote to the contrary of the public (if perhaps less informed) opinion of their constituents. We place our trust in these people to do right by us. We cannot merely hope they do so. They must have the moral integrity to follow through on promises that made us elect them in the first instance or a damn good reason why not.

To merely "hope" they act accordingly as they know best, to me is not good enough.

On an allied point, conflicts of this nature are few and far between. Democracy / government should never be in danger of teetering or collapsing due to one or two local TDs doing what they promised to do for their electorate.

As, in this case, it appears one of the reasons behind Frank Feighan's decision to vote with the government. If that's truly the case (although in my view its BS excuse), this government is in far deeper sheet than as is exposed by this spat...

[fatboypee]

Originally Posted by ArmaniJeanss

This is the fundamental conflict in out constituency system.

You see I elected my representatives to do what is best for the country on a national level - I'd be perfectly content if Burton & Varadkar never give Dublin West a thought for the next few years. I'll badger my local councillors about local issues (and trust me I do so.)

Whereas other voters seem to elect their representatives to be gombeens and parish pumpers, to represent the interests of County XXXX above all others. Its how we end up with JHR, Lowry and 'He Fixed The Roads' sketches on Savage Eye.
I despise this attitude so much.

Why do you despise it ? You vote locally to support a national interest ? What is the point of having any constituency basis for electoral nominations then ? Maybe we should just vote for them as they are all good guys with our best interests at heart then...

[GerM]

Originally Posted by fatboypee

If someone is better placed to make a call on my behalf.....
Hope they will ?? This is YOUR TD, whatever, the person who represents YOU. They are not doing their job if they do not present facts they have gained that directly influence their decision to vote to the contrary of the public (if perhaps less informed) opinion of their constituents. We place our trust in these people to do right by us. We cannot merely hope they do so. They must have the moral integrity to follow through on promises that made us elect them in the first instance or a damn good reason why not.

To merely "hope" they act accordingly as they know best, to me is not good enough.

On an allied point, conflicts of this nature are few and far between. Democracy / government should never be in danger of teetering or collapsing due to one or two local TDs doing what they promised to do for their electorate.

As, in this case, it appears one of the reasons behind Frank Feighan's decision to vote with the government. If that's truly the case (although in my view its BS excuse), this government is in far deeper sheet than as is exposed by this spat...

Yes, I hope. I live in reality. What do you suggest? We hold a gun to their heads and tell them to do as we say? We cannot 100% expect them to do what is best for us. That's simply the world we live in. I think one of the TDs in the Roscommon/South Leitrim consituency did what was best for his career and not what was best overall this week. I hope that those I've elected do what is best for me. I don't know them personally. I can't vouch for their character as individuals. In theory, it's black and white. In reality, we know it's not and we can hope or expect (if that word is more palatable for you) our elected officials to act in our best interest but that does not mean it is going to always happen.

Feighan did his job. He was interviewed and did present the facts that directly influenced his decision. He did so on live radio. He attempted to speak with his constituents outside the Dáil but was attacked and had to be led away. He spoke with the head of the HIQA who informed him that the hospital was not viable and not able to provide an adequate level of care to his constituents. The director of Roscommon/Galway hospitals reiterated HIQA's findings. Feighan did what he believed was best for his constituents. He did so in the knowledge that it will cost him his career. The people of his constituency will never vote him into office again. He's only in his forties and not nearing retirement. He probably did not expect his constituents to make a death threat to him either. He was spat upon and shoved as he walked. It seems that, after examining all the facts at hand, Feighan found it more morally acceptable to do what was best for people and break a promise rather than keep a promise and do what was worst for people. His reward for making that call will be his treatment as an outcast and loss of his career.

[mdebets]

Originally Posted by fatboypee

Is it worth even going there with this ? The point is not financial, its about servicing a disparate community over a large area in the most effective way. NOT financially, actually saving lives. This cannot effectively done if the nearest A&E is in some points over an hour away (unless perhaps you have a time machine planned as a replacement?)

I agree with you, it's not about the money, it's about serving the community with the best A&E service. However your conclusion is wrong. Studies have shown that additional travel to a center of excellence is preferable to a local A&E without specialist background services and without enough cases to keep the skill and experience levels of the staff up.
Look at Bermingham. Same population as Ireland, but only 4 A&Es. Ireland in comparison has 33 A&Es.
What the government should do is close most of the local A&Es (probably leave 6 or 7 open at major hospitals). Then deploy the freed-up staff to these hospital and invest the saved money into better facilities and a better ambulance service (including a comprehensive air ambulance service)

[fatboypee]

Originally Posted by GerM

......
Feighan did his job. He was interviewed and did present the facts that directly influenced his decision. He did so on live radio. He attempted to speak with his constituents outside the Dáil but was attacked and had to be led away. He spoke with the head of the HIQA who informed him that the hospital was not viable and not able to provide an adequate level of care to his constituents. The director of Roscommon/Galway hospitals reiterated HIQA's findings. Feighan did what he believed was best for his constituents. He did so in the knowledge that it will cost him his career. The people of his constituency will never vote him into office again. He's only in his forties and not nearing retirement. He probably did not expect his constituents to make a death threat to him either. He was spat upon and shoved as he walked. It seems that, after examining all the facts at hand, Feighan found it more morally acceptable to do what was best for people and break a promise rather than keep a promise and do what was worst for people. His reward for making that call will be his treatment as an outcast and loss of his career.

OK, take your points. But lets look at the situation. Feighan is an elected representative of his constituency. He has a moral obligation to put their wishes forth. It's what he was elected for. In reality, he should not have an opinion on this subject. Much like the whip, the constituents have a right to expect their representative to first and foremost put across their wishes and vote according to them. NOT subvert such express instructions and vote to the contrary.

He may well have been looking at a wider picture, he may well have "people's" best interests at heart, however, put bluntly, his dissention from the party whip should be expected in such an instance. It was the wish of his constituents that he vote thus. It should also not unduly destabilise the government should they remove the party whip from him for doing so and I do not believe it would have done so had he dissented. Therefore, you must ask yourself, for what reason did he vote thus ? It surely was not (in my view) in order to take the moral high ground, or, to protect the government.

Of course he deserved no physical threat, or abuse. However I personally believe that by voting against his constituent's wishes and breaking the electoral promises he made had, in essence, defrauded the electorate, at least those who voted for him on the premise that he would support the hospital as that was their capital interest.