Róisín Shortall

Sam Russell

I thought Slaintecare was based on the Dutch model, but perhaps I am wrong.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118360273#Comment_118360273

The FG proposal from 2011 was Dutch model. Slaintecare isn't; its basically an NHS copy with tweaks.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118360681#Comment_118360681

Oh, I did not realise that.

The NHS is falling apart because the Tories have started privatising it, which basically funds their funders.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118357915#Comment_118357915

Here is what I said in my post:

You can certainly argue the reason for implementing the law in the first place but you cannot argue that putting a floor on the price of alcohol (or any product proven to be detrimental to health) will not have any health benefits.

Unless things have dramatically changed since 2018 in the Scandinavian countries, we don't have the second most expensive alcohol prices in Europe. That aside, I'm assuming the heart of your question is "If we already have relatively expensive alcohol in this country then how is making it even more expensive going to change things?". Where the price is right now is immaterial. It's all relative and the question is "what will happen as prices increase?". For some people (especially alcoholics) it won't change anything except for meaning that they'll spend more of their income on their alcohol. For another cohort, who are more price sensitive, the amount of alcohol they consume is proportional to how expensive it is. Put simply they drink less when the price goes up. That right there is the causal link between positive health outcomes and the price of alcohol.

Anyway, this has gone beyond the scope of a discussion on Roisín Shorthall.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118361048#Comment_118361048

Conveniently ignoring my main question on why its not being done via excise or the previous rules that were already in place but were removed by Michael Martin? I dont believe it has gone beyond the scope as Shortall is one of the first people to put it forward and regularly shows support for it.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118358706#Comment_118358706

Unit pricing means a 24 slab can be split and the price for one can is one twenty-fourth of the price for the slab. You buy the amount you want, not an increased quantity because of multi-buy pricing. No gaming the system by the supermarkets.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118361323#Comment_118361323

I ignored it since I think it's of secondary importance. If health outcomes increase as the price goes up then that bill is good for health outcomes.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118361470#Comment_118361470

What we have doesn't allow you to have a multi-pack opened. Could have been added to the legislation quite easily though.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118361584#Comment_118361584

The result in Scotland was more drug use and more drug deaths. Just moves the responsibility to someone without a lobby group basically.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118361711#Comment_118361711

Well, I have seen Tesco staff breaking up slabs to put them on shelves as unit cans, so if they can do it, so can the customer. If the can does not have a bar code then that is a problem. However, it is simple to have a voluntary agreement with the sellers.

Anyway this is going away from the subject.

Roisin Shortall was not the only proposer of this and other projects, but has been a national politician of great honesty and stuck by her positions even in the hostile environment on the Dail.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118358552#Comment_118358552

Im not 100% convinced on her principles. She had vehemtly strong pro life principles while in the Labour Party but now is the opposite. I know people change opinions over time. Im really just not convinced of her sincerity on social liberal issues given her past stances would have been oppositional.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118361719#Comment_118361719

Do you have a source for that claim? I'd be interested in reading more about that.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118361834#Comment_118361834

Has to be stitched together as no government body is going to release a figure showing that their policies lead to increased harm. But there's been a very significant uptick in drug harm and deaths:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/30/drugs-deaths-in-scotland-soar-to-record-level

And the other much vaunted claim about it reducing crime hasn't worked out to any extent either:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-58871427

Moving problem drinkers - alcohol addicts, bluntly - to a cheaper but completely illegal vice is not going to benefit them or society. Drug treatment is more expensive than alcohol treatment too.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118361762#Comment_118361762

That would have been shipping cases; or slabs being sold at 24x the price of a single (like they used to be, I remember the €50 slab!)

I'm not sure you understand our current regulations. It is not legal to sell 24x (or 2x, or 100000x) cans/bottles in multiple at any discount of the same multiple of the price of a single can of the same type.

This means that you get, for instance, slabs of Guinness using 538ml cans. They do not sell 538ml can of Guinness in singles - anywhere, ever. This sidesteps the law as there simply is no price for a single. And if you open up the slab you're going to be removed from the premises for damaging merchandise.

coastwatch

As SD spokesperson for Health (plus Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform), she comes across as articulate, well informed and on top of her brief, and offers constructive criticisim to government. Far more effective than her SF equivalent.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118361879#Comment_118361879

That article is not evidence for your claim. It shows that drug deaths have been climbing since 2013. We cannot tell from that what the underlying causes for that rise. It does speculate that: " campaigners believe that multi-generational poverty, the normalisation of drug misuse and childhood trauma are the root causes of Scotland’s drugs crisis".

While we cannot give a definitive reason for that rise we can rule one thing out for certain. The MUP only came in in 2018 - 5 years after that drug death numbers shot up. It's safe to say that that's not the root cause of the issue.

L1011

There's more than enough there to suggest a link.

Its failed in its direct health goals, and consumption has not fallen by a significant amount. There will have been some diversion of sale to England just as there will be to NI here, meaning that the fall in sale will be larger than the fall in actual consumption. Those who are still addicted are spending more of their often very limited funds to purchase alcohol.

Even if such a system was worthwhile - and there is not enough evidence to claim that - you can get the same result by adjusting excise. But that hits publicans too and this is a publican promotion measure not a health measure. Never was never will be

Brussels Sprout

There's more than enough there to suggest a link.

Unless the MUP law was able to defy the laws of Physics and go back in time 5 years to cause the number of drug deaths to shoot up then no, there really isn't.

Honestly, 2 pages in and I'm still not sure what achievements there were over s 29 year career as a TD.

There is the potential introduction of two schemes that she has lobbied for being mentioned but what was achieved/done/delivered at any point in the past either for her constituency or on a national level where her actions had an impact on it?

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118364553#Comment_118364553

I think Shortall is probably no different from any other TD in the country.

She gets elected because the electorate in her constituency see her as someone that can primarily help them on a local level.

I'm sure Shortall deals with the same volume of requests and queries as ever other TD in the country.

Planning queries, passport queries, welfare queries, employment queries, local infrastructure (roads, transport) queries etc etc.

And that's not her fault, our weak local government plus the PR system with multi seat constituencies make it that way.

On a national level the reality is there is not enough national policy to go around.

A government will have 80+ TDs minimum and could have over 100.

Not all of them can be at the forefront of the introduction of national policy, the best the vast majority can do is sit on a committee and ask a few questions, and support government policy while going about their constituency work.

And opposition TD can do little more, sit on the same committees and ask a few questions, and oppose government policy and support the alternative policies their party advocates, while going about their constituency work.

So grading a TD based on their achievements at national level is not a good measure because many of them never get the chance.

Shortall was 20 years at it before she got her chance, she resigned on principal and set up a new party. That and now 30 years of local work is what gets her elected.

boardise

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118350718#Comment_118350718

I'm not sure that any rules were bent. My recall is that there was a list drawn up of locations eligible for primary care centres. The list was passed to the Minister who, according to the rules, has the final say and is entitled to modify the list. The Minister's constituency was generally agreed to be a high need area and so it was added. This is ,in effect , a perk of office -you attain a high position -CEO,Minister, Director etc.-in any sector and you have the ability to move policy in a certain direction -subject to broad controls of course. It wasn't really any big deal . Roisin flouncing off in a shimmering cloud of principle was all very fine -but in reality if everyone was to constantly adopt this delicate approach to decision making -nothing much would ever get done.

I have no great regard for Shortall -she just sits on the sidelines preaching purity and perfection -anyone can do that . I believe she could have become Minister for Health after the last election when government formation talks were going on -but she ran for the hills . She constantly talks as if she has all the answers to the health problems in the country -but it's much more satisfying to moralise from the safety of the opposition benches rather than get your hands dirty actually trying to change anything.

Hotblack Desiato

This is ,in effect , a perk of office -you attain a high position -CEO,Minister, Director etc.-in any sector and you have the ability to move policy in a certain direction -subject to broad controls of course.

It's corruption.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118361048#Comment_118361048

Norway and Iceland are not in the EU.

Alcoholics will spend more on their drink. I'm sure their families are thrilled at that prospect.

But anyway - what sort of animal would send out a leaflet to voters using Comic Sans??? 😲

boardise

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118365746#Comment_118365746

That's a pretty severe judgement and unjustified in my view. Corruption undoubtedly exists in all countries . It is generally a behaviour that is hidden and involves extreme disadvantage for either a particular group or even an entire population. I doubt the Minister's actions fall into that category.It was done on the record and actually benefitted more people. Anyway -apart from a few egregious examples ,most corruption in Ireland is fairly petty and pales in comparison to what one finds elsewhere

Consider a case where an acute need has to be dealt with in Ireland . It will likely be in some Minister's constituency. Is the Minister then precluded from meeting that need -or they'll be excoriated for allegedly 'feathering their own nest' ? In fact I remember when the children's hospital location was being discussed .Blanchardstown was in the mix at one point. Leo Varadkar - Minister for Health for at least part of the time the NCH debate was raging- stated publicly that he felt he couldn't speak to the merits of the Blanchardstown case because it was in his constituency and his motives would be misconstrued.

The world is a messy place and politics is a tough business. Prating about 'principle' in every small-scale instance is as likely to be a hindrance as a help. There's not going to be any political utopia appearing anywhere any time soon -political paragons like Shortall notwithstanding.

PopePalpatine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118365751#Comment_118365751

That leaflet header looks like an album cover for a Shania Twain wannabe.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118365399#Comment_118365399

It was pretty blatant. The two locations in his constituency were not ranked in the top 20 by the HSE. He enlarged that list purely so he could add them. It was stroke politics at its worst.

The report by Paul Cullen and Martin Wall revealed that the HSE had originally identified a list of 200 potential venues, ranking each, before sending a list of the top 20 recommendations to the Department of Health.

However, the final list of potential venues published two months ago had been expanded to 35 towns – including Swords and Balbriggan, which were not among the list but which lie in Reilly’s Dublin North constituency.

The method of deciding the prospective venues for primary care centres was one of the concerns raised by junior health minister Róisín Shortall – who herself is responsible for primary care – during a Dáil debate on Reilly’s tenure earlier this week.

source

Here's a separate article on a speech that Shorthall gave at the time when she voted against a motion of confidence in Reilly. I only link to it because it includes a comments section which gives you a snapshot into the complains at that time (in 2012). Basically people were cutting the legs off her for not sticking with her principles and walking away from the job and the party. A month or 2 later she did just that. However you now have people in this thread cutting the legs off her for saying that she "flounced away" or "was a quitter" or "quit to save her own skin" or whatever. It just shows you that politicians cannot win regardless of what action they take.

Yurt2

As far as the 'no achievements' thing and criticising her for being in opposition, the Social Democrats are very well placed to be in coalition the post-the next election. Perhaps the second party with a degree of luck, but most likely the third. Shortall will be first name down for the health portfolio and she'll want it when others will run from it. Above all TDs she kept Slaintecare alive in the Oireachtas and did the front running on it.

The SDs were widely pilloried upon formation, but all signals point to them being there for the long-haul and a permanent fixture on the Irish political landscape - and that's whether you like them or not.

L1011

Interestingly (but indicative of nothing other than that), she would be one of the oldest Ministers ever if she got the portfolio in 2025; and I think the oldest (or second oldest) ever if held for a full term. She'd be 71 by that election if it doesn't get called early and then 76 at the end.

I think 73 is the record for a Minister - Noonan in Finance; or 77 if you count Dev as Taoiseach.

Hotblack Desiato

You'd kinda have to count Dev as Taoiseach - but he was long past his sell-by date by then. Lemass shoud've got the top job in the 50s - arguably we wouldn't have fallen so far behind the rest of Europe economically.

L1011

Life expectancy then was a shade under 60 I think versus 82 now, at that.