Stephen Donnelly

roosh · 18-04-2021 5:47pm #1

I'm trying to understand the current outrage over Stephen Donnelly's comments about looking into having 18-24 year olds vaccinated ahead of other age groups.

Was the controversial statement made in an interview with the Irish Times, or where did it first appear? I'm trying to find out the context in which he made the statement.

is_that_so · 18-04-2021 5:53pm

roosh wrote: »

I'm trying to understand the current outrage over Stephen Donnelly's comments about looking into having 18-24 year olds vaccinated ahead of other age groups.

Was the controversial statement made in an interview with the Irish Times, or where did it first appear? I'm trying to find out the context in which he made the statement.

It was in the original vaccine plan as a possible approach, depending on our circumstances. All he really did was ask whether it might now be an option. It's very unlikely to be considered but we still had a full-blown storm over it.

roosh · 18-04-2021 6:23pm

is_that_so wrote: »

It was in the original vaccine plan as a possible approach, depending on our circumstances. All he really did was ask whether it might now be an option. It's very unlikely to be considered but we still had a full-blown storm over it.

Thank you, that's what I was thinking but with the reaction I was thinking there must have been something I missed.

EDIT: Was it in an Irish Times interview he said it? I'm just wondering what the context was. Was he just answering a question or why did he even say it?

johnnyskeleton · 18-04-2021 7:41pm

It was raised by NPHET back in December:

https://assets.gov.ie/108854/babc7d1b-cb10-49db-8dd0-0c7408dea162.pdf

In the context of the penultimate stage i.e. all adults 18-54 who aren't already vaccinated

If evidence demonstrates the vaccine(s) prevent transmission, those aged 18-34 should be prioritised due to their increased level of social contact and role in transmission.

So there is a logic to it. Also, his statement is:

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/under-30s-may-receive-vaccine-before-those-aged-30-50-1113032.html

breakingnews.ie wrote:

“I’ve asked the department to assess the case for vaccinating younger cohorts earlier, on the basis of reducing overall transmission as quickly as possible,” Mr Donnelly told The Irish Times.

The Irish Times is behind a paywall. He is only asking them to assess it, and is doing so based (presumably) on the earlier NPHET advice that if there was evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission, then this age cohort should be prioritised to prevent the spread.

At the end of the day, if the best advice available is that vaccinating this group of people as a priority will reduce the spread of covid, I think we should do this. I'm (sadly) no longer in that group but even though it will push me back further in the queue, I would strongly support it if that is the best public health advice available.

The controversy stems from the fact that a lot of people are looking at the vaccine as though it was something to be given as a reward for those worthy or something to be distributed based solely on factors relating to individual risk. But public health seems to be much more complicated than that, and the theory makes sense insofar as if the vaccine is 90% effective, that means 10% of the most vulnerable i.e. elderly and immunocompromised will think they are immune but they are not. So once we have vaccinated the most vulnerable, we should then look at reducing the spread of covid, at the very least in tandem with simultaneously vaccinating people by age downwards.

I would also be in favour of those who have to deal with the public such as Gardai, supermarket employees and bus drivers, for example, to get priority because their vaccination would also help reduce the spread of the disease.

roosh · 18-04-2021 7:55pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It was raised by NPHET back in December:

https://assets.gov.ie/108854/babc7d1b-cb10-49db-8dd0-0c7408dea162.pdf

In the context of the penultimate stage i.e. all adults 18-54 who aren't already vaccinated

So there is a logic to it. Also, his statement is:

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/under-30s-may-receive-vaccine-before-those-aged-30-50-1113032.html

The Irish Times is behind a paywall. He is only asking them to assess it, and is doing so based (presumably) on the earlier NPHET advice that if there was evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission, then this age cohort should be prioritised to prevent the spread.

Thanks Johnny. As I'm reading about it, I'm arriving at the same conclusion. It seems like it's being blown out of all proportion altogether.

I followed the link in this Irish Times tweet:
https://twitter.com/IrishTimes/status/1383220172278820871?s=19

And I was able to read it:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/under-30s-may-get-vaccinated-early-under-new-plan-being-considered-to-slow-covid-19-1.4539770?mode=amp

Assuming that is the right article.

Gavin Reilly is saying that he would've had the answer from the CMO before doing the Irish Times interview, but it seems like the "answer" is that the "[transmission data] isn't there". To me that reads like it's still an open question.

I'd like to see the transcript of the interview with the Irish Times to see what question he was actually asked.

roosh · 18-04-2021 8:03pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It was raised by NPHET back in December:

https://assets.gov.ie/108854/babc7d1b-cb10-49db-8dd0-0c7408dea162.pdf

In the context of the penultimate stage i.e. all adults 18-54 who aren't already vaccinated

Thanks for the reference btw. You don't happen to know off the top of your head what page the original possiblity is raised?

JP Liz V1 · 18-04-2021 8:04pm

SD is out of his depth, no idea how to run the health department

johnnyskeleton · 18-04-2021 8:08pm

roosh wrote: »

Gavin Reilly is saying that he would've had the answer from the CMO before doing the Irish Times interview, but it seems like the "answer" is that the "[transmission data] isn't there". To me that reads like it's still an open question.

I think so yeah. The best information seems to be that it makes sense that if the vaccine reduces viral load and symptoms, that it would logically reduce the spread, but equally it cannot be said with any certainty that if you've been vaccinated that you cannot transmit it. The variants also pose a further problem.

roosh wrote: »

Thanks for the reference btw. You don't happen to know off the top of your head what page the original possiblity is raised?

Page 29 has all the various groups etc. It is the right hand panel after the 18-54 category.

Prenderb · 18-04-2021 8:20pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

SD is out of his depth, no idea how to run the health department

Because he might be keeping an open mind on alterations to a plan as new information comes to light?

blanch152 · 19-04-2021 8:07pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It was raised by NPHET back in December:

https://assets.gov.ie/108854/babc7d1b-cb10-49db-8dd0-0c7408dea162.pdf

In the context of the penultimate stage i.e. all adults 18-54 who aren't already vaccinated

So there is a logic to it. Also, his statement is:

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/under-30s-may-receive-vaccine-before-those-aged-30-50-1113032.html

The Irish Times is behind a paywall. He is only asking them to assess it, and is doing so based (presumably) on the earlier NPHET advice that if there was evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission, then this age cohort should be prioritised to prevent the spread.

At the end of the day, if the best advice available is that vaccinating this group of people as a priority will reduce the spread of covid, I think we should do this. I'm (sadly) no longer in that group but even though it will push me back further in the queue, I would strongly support it if that is the best public health advice available.

The controversy stems from the fact that a lot of people are looking at the vaccine as though it was something to be given as a reward for those worthy or something to be distributed based solely on factors relating to individual risk. But public health seems to be much more complicated than that, and the theory makes sense insofar as if the vaccine is 90% effective, that means 10% of the most vulnerable i.e. elderly and immunocompromised will think they are immune but they are not. So once we have vaccinated the most vulnerable, we should then look at reducing the spread of covid, at the very least in tandem with simultaneously vaccinating people by age downwards.

I would also be in favour of those who have to deal with the public such as Gardai, supermarket employees and bus drivers, for example, to get priority because their vaccination would also help reduce the spread of the disease.

Denmark is vaccinating those over 50 first, then in a pincer movement, it is vaccinating 18-year olds and 49-year olds, with those in their mid-30s being last as a result. Combines the two priorities

Lumen · 20-04-2021 6:23am

The broader context is a public frustrated by over three months of winter lockdown and lack of vaccines.

When you have limited vaccine supply it makes sense to put a lot of effort into finding the highest risk patients, but that's hard to do when the data is spread across GPs and hospitals with no central pool of data. Some GPs are paper based.

The oldest patients have the lowest mobility, and transporting them to a MVC is difficult and risky. COVID bus anyone?

The Pfizer vaccine is difficult to transport.

The AZ vaccine is easy to transport but supply was all over the place and then was pulled for certain age groups.

FG and even his own colleagues are constantly leaking and counter briefing.

So there's all that. Plus he's given some absolutely hopeless interviews.

I suspect that there's a number of politicians who resent how easily he's been promoted without the years of political drudgery and boot licking they had to go through and are delighted that he's getting a kicking.

And as the saying goes, no-one likes a smartarse.

cuculainn · 20-04-2021 7:40am

Prenderb wrote: »

Because he might be keeping an open mind on alterations to a plan as new information comes to light?

No, because everything before and after his statement has indicated that he is out of his depth......

If this statement had come from someone who people had trust in there would have been no controversy.....

roosh · 20-04-2021 9:26am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Page 29 has all the various groups etc. It is the right hand panel after the 18-54 category.

cheers

roosh · 20-04-2021 9:29am

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

SD is out of his depth, no idea how to run the health department

Who were the other possible candidates for minister for Health?

What specifically would you say that he has gotten wrong?

roosh · 20-04-2021 9:32am

blanch152 wrote: »

Denmark is vaccinating those over 50 first, then in a pincer movement, it is vaccinating 18-year olds and 49-year olds, with those in their mid-30s being last as a result. Combines the two priorities

Do you have a source for this that I could check out? Cheers Blanch

roosh · 20-04-2021 9:39am

cuculainn wrote: »

No, because everything before and after his statement has indicated that he is out of his depth......

If this statement had come from someone who people had trust in there would have been no controversy.....

What would you say those things before and after are that indicate he is out of his depth?

L1011 · 20-04-2021 9:44am

roosh wrote: »

Who were the other possible candidates for minister for Health?

1: Retain Harris, who at least didn't babble as oddly and seemed to be able to keep consistent ideas
2: Give it to the Greens - Smyth was their rep for it at the time - not sure this would be better.

seamus · 20-04-2021 9:46am

roosh wrote: »

Who were the other possible candidates for minister for Health?

What specifically would you say that he has gotten wrong?

He doesn't really understand the job he's doing. For him it's another jostle for position, not a role with public responsibilities.

Even if we assume that his query about vaccinating the younger cohorts was made in good faith, it shows a severe failure to understand the position of other bodies within Health and a severe failure to read the public mood and understand his role a public servant.

The vaccine cohorts had been re-jigged two weeks previously based on NIAC advice. There was a lot of noise publically about it, quite a bit of frustration, but it had settled down. Rather than read the room, he decided to reignite that frustration, by second-guessing NIAC and asking if their plan really was the best one. That's insanely poor management.

But it's not just about that. It's about a pattern of incorrect figures and statements being made in interviews, about an arrogant dismissal of any questions he doesn't like, about a history where he spent years as the "health spokesperson" for FF, accusing previous ministers for health of making wrong decisions at every turn. And when he gets in their himself, he's out of his depth.

Dept. of Health staff also have no respect for him, he's known as an arrogant bully in the dept who pays no regard to the health guidelines. When he turned up to that public briefing looking sick, Ronan Glynn himself had to force him to accept a referral for a test, and instead of going straight home as you're supposed to, he went to the canteen and made a phone call, surrounded by horrified staff.

Other candidates? Harris would have been the optimal choice. Continuity through a pandemic. A proven steady hand. Second choice would have been Varadkar. Someone with actual medical qualifications, who had gained the public trust in the first months of the pandemic. Assigning the MoH position to the Tánaiste would have also signalled just how important the position is in the current context.

is_that_so · 20-04-2021 9:48am

roosh wrote: »

Who were the other possible candidates for minister for Health?

What specifically would you say that he has gotten wrong?

FF and Donnelly both wanted it, it'll revert to FG in Government Part Deux. Generally you don't find candidates for Angola as it has been called! We've had few good MoHs.

roosh · 20-04-2021 10:18am

L1011 wrote: »

1: Retain Harris, who at least didn't babble as oddly and seemed to be able to keep consistent ideas
2: Give it to the Greens - Smyth was their rep for it at the time - not sure this would be better.

Was the last general election not called to avoid a vote of no confidence in Harris?

I'm not familiar with Smyth's credentials. Is there something about his qualifications that makes you think he would have been a better MfH?

What specifically do you think Donnelly has done wrong?

20-04-2021 10:25am

roosh wrote: »

Was the last general election not called to avoid a vote of no confidence in Harris?

I'm not familiar with Smyth's credentials. Is there something about his qualifications that makes you think he would have been a better MfH?

What specifically do you think Donnelly has done wrong?

as out of his depth as Donnelly may be, Harris has to be the most useless, yet protected, minister of all time.

He must own a pretty impressive set of negatives to have made it this far in his career.

20-04-2021 10:31am

Voted in at the 14th count. His own constitutants didn't even want him. Under current legislation he's been given the most power anybody has ever had in this country ever.

Zeek12 · 20-04-2021 10:31am

While some of Donnelly's interviews have not always inspired confidence, I don't see any issue here.

The minister sought clarification on whether prioritizing vaccination of younger cohorts early would be worth pursuing.
And got the answer he sought - and has confirmed I believe that nothing has changed and vaccination will proceed with over 40s/50s to be vaccinated ahead of the 18-30 yr olds.

Like a lot of what we hear and read during the pandemic, this seems like a storm in a teacup largely of the media's making imo.

Almost 14 months of non stop Covid coverage, the media have run out of things to talk about, and struggle with a lack of "sensationalist" news items. They will try and generate a storm wherever they can.

The general public are fatigued not only by living with Covid and restrictions - but by listening to our media outlets talking about it all the time!

roosh · 20-04-2021 10:38am

seamus wrote: »

He doesn't really understand the job he's doing. For him it's another jostle for position, not a role with public responsibilities.

Even if we assume that his query about vaccinating the younger cohorts was made in good faith, it shows a severe failure to understand the position of other bodies within Health and a severe failure to read the public mood and understand his role a public servant.

The vaccine cohorts had been re-jigged two weeks previously based on NIAC advice. There was a lot of noise publically about it, quite a bit of frustration, but it had settled down. Rather than read the room, he decided to reignite that frustration, by second-guessing NIAC and asking if their plan really was the best one. That's insanely poor management.

Have you seen a transcript of the interview to know what question he was asked? I would be interested to see that myself bcos I don't think he contacted the Irish Times and said, "here's a quote for ya!".

Also, the idea of vaccinating the 18-34 year olds is directly from [p.29 of] the National Vaccination Programme Strategy published in December.
https://assets.gov.ie/108854/babc7d1b-cb10-49db-8dd0-0c7408dea162.pdf

seamus wrote: »

But it's not just about that. It's about a pattern of incorrect figures and statements being made in interviews, about an arrogant dismissal of any questions he doesn't like, about a history where he spent years as the "health spokesperson" for FF, accusing previous ministers for health of making wrong decisions at every turn. And when he gets in their himself, he's out of his depth.

What pattern of incorrect figures? He's often pressed for exact figures in interviews and he has been very reluctant to give them. He's been proven correct on that basis with all the issues surrounding deliveries. If he gives an exact figure, then people will only turn around and say that he promised one thing and didn't deliver.

Have you got any examples of his arrogant dismissal of questions he doesn't like? I don't watch all his interviews but any time I have he answers questions pretty forthrightly, in a measured and cogent manner. What he doesn't do is accept the interviewers framing, when they are angling for a clickbait headline.

I've never seen him accuse anyone of making wrong decisions, I've only ever seen him present clear, cogent, and probing questions and ask for a response.

Can you point to any specific things you think Donnelly has gotten wrong?

seamus wrote: »

Dept. of Health staff also have no respect for him, he's known as an arrogant bully in the dept who pays no regard to the health guidelines. When he turned up to that public briefing looking sick, Ronan Glynn himself had to force him to accept a referral for a test, and instead of going straight home as you're supposed to, he went to the canteen and made a phone call, surrounded by horrified staff.

Have you got a reference for that story? I'm not suggesting it isn't true I just want check it out for myself.

Bear in mind, going into a department and making changes is not going to win you any friends, people are going to resist and blame you.

seamus wrote: »

Other candidates? Harris would have been the optimal choice. Continuity through a pandemic. A proven steady hand. Second choice would have been Varadkar. Someone with actual medical qualifications, who had gained the public trust in the first months of the pandemic. Assigning the MoH position to the Tánaiste would have also signalled just how important the position is in the current context.

The last election was called to avoid a vote of no confidence in Harris, was it not?

You should be pointing the finger at Varadkar, Martin, and Ryan for not making Varadkar MoH then.

roosh · 20-04-2021 10:40am

tommybrees wrote: »

Voted in at the 14th count. His own constitutants didn't even want him. Under current legislation he's been given the most power anybody has ever had in this country ever.

Simon Harris was elected on the same count, wasn't he? Varadkar on the 5th, and Martin on the 6th, is that correct?

roosh · 20-04-2021 10:41am

Zeek12 wrote: »

While some of Donnelly's interviews have not always inspired confidence, I don't see any issue here.

The minister sought clarification on whether prioritizing vaccination of younger cohorts early would be worth pursuing.
And got the answer he sought - and has confirmed I believe that nothing has changed and vaccination will proceed with over 40s/50s to be vaccinated ahead of the 18-30 yr olds.

Like a lot of what we hear and read during the pandemic, this seems like a storm in a teacup largely of the media's making imo.

Almost 14 months of non stop Covid coverage, the media have run out of things to talk about, and struggle with a lack of "sensationalist" news items. They will try and generate a storm wherever they can.

The general public are fatigued not only by living with Covid and restrictions - but by listening to our media outlets talking about it all the time!

Nail on the head.

StupidLikeAFox · 20-04-2021 10:44am

tommybrees wrote: »

Voted in at the 14th count. His own constitutants didn't even want him. Under current legislation he's been given the most power anybody has ever had in this country ever.

Your first two sentences appear to contradict each other

forumdedum · 20-04-2021 10:47am

Look at me. Here I am today in my lovely overcoat telling you all that I have done and will do.

Oh for the days we have someone in politics that honestly just gets on with it and doesn't have to make a song and dance.

L1011 · 20-04-2021 10:53am

What count you're elected on is utterly irrelevant.

Nobody ever made an issue of it before SF forgot to run enough candidates and they will desperately regret doing so when SF do run enough and get people elected on later counts next time out.

Quin_Dub · 20-04-2021 10:56am

Zeek12 wrote: »

While some of Donnelly's interviews have not always inspired confidence, I don't see any issue here.

The minister sought clarification on whether prioritizing vaccination of younger cohorts early would be worth pursuing.
And got the answer he sought - and has confirmed I believe that nothing has changed and vaccination will proceed with over 40s/50s to be vaccinated ahead of the 18-30 yr olds.

Like a lot of what we hear and read during the pandemic, this seems like a storm in a teacup largely of the media's making imo.

Almost 14 months of non stop Covid coverage, the media have run out of things to talk about, and struggle with a lack of "sensationalist" news items. They will try and generate a storm wherever they can.

The general public are fatigued not only by living with Covid and restrictions - but by listening to our media outlets talking about it all the time!

The issue is that he sought that "clarity" in public via the media.

No issue with him working with the experts to fine-tune things and work for the best outcomes , that is absolutely the right thing to be doing.

But nothing should be brought up in the media until it's an actual decision.

I agree that the media are looking for the story , but Donnelly needs to understand that sometimes he just needs to say nothing.

Public kite flying is grand in opposition , but right now it is absolutely the worst possible thing to be doing.

A major part of the issues with the Governments actions in recent months has been their utterly shambolic communications strategy.

The story is changing hour to hour almost.

Pick a story , make sure everyone gets the info and stay consistent - That's politics 101 and they have failed miserably at that since MM took over.

roosh · 20-04-2021 11:14am

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The issue is that he sought that "clarity" in public via the media.

No issue with him working with the experts to fine-tune things and work for the best outcomes , that is absolutely the right thing to be doing.

But nothing should be brought up in the media until it's an actual decision.

I agree that the media are looking for the story , but Donnelly needs to understand that sometimes he just needs to say nothing.

Public kite flying is grand in opposition , but right now it is absolutely the worst possible thing to be doing.

A major part of the issues with the Governments actions in recent months has been their utterly shambolic communications strategy.

The story is changing hour to hour almost.

Pick a story , make sure everyone gets the info and stay consistent - That's politics 101 and they have failed miserably at that since MM took over.

How was it kite flying? The idea was proposed back in December in the National Vaccination Strategy document.

Have you seen a transcript of the interview to see what question he was asked to give that response?

How has the story changed hour to hour?

Furze99 · 20-04-2021 11:37am

roosh wrote: »

How was it kite flying?

This was all a government PR stunt designed to whip up the media. The focus was to take the heat off the debate about people in their sixties being the only cohort to get the AZ vaccine which has been the subject of concern in many countries. Then the threats by Varadkar & Coveney to put people who wouldn't comply, to the back of the queue. That was a story gathering legs and potentially damaging. So they dumped this 18-30 idea out to get everyone excited and kill the other debate. We are all constantly being manipulated, for good or ill, by the HSE and government as regards this issue.

Quin_Dub · 20-04-2021 11:45am

roosh wrote: »

How was it kite flying? The idea was proposed back in December in the National Vaccination Strategy document.

Have you seen a transcript of the interview to see what question he was asked to give that response?

How has the story changed hour to hour?

I wasn't speaking about this specific story , but we've had repeated instances where one Government rep says one thing and then shortly afterwards another rep says something slightly different.

In terms of Donnelly and the interview - I couldn't care less what question he was asked - If a decision hadn't been confirmed then the answer is "I have no updates /information on that" not "Well we might make this change , or we might not but we'll have a chat about it" or whatever. Don't give oxygen to this stuff.

The point is that bringing up potential changes to the vaccine plan before they have been fully vetted and agreed - whether prompted or unprompted is a PR/Communications failure.

What is needed here and has always been needed is clear, concise and consistent messaging - They have generally failed in that regard.

I think that they have been doing a pretty decent job in terms of the actual work of getting the vaccinations done, given the supply issues and safety delays etc. Our % completion rates etc. measure up pretty well within the rest of the EU.

However , they've done a pretty poor job of managing the messaging around it , making life much more difficult for themselves as a result.

roosh · 20-04-2021 11:52am

Furze99 wrote: »

This was all a government PR stunt designed to whip up the media. The focus was to take the heat off the debate about people in their sixties being the only cohort to get the AZ vaccine which has been the subject of concern in many countries. Then the threats by Varadkar & Coveney to put people who wouldn't comply, to the back of the queue. That was a story gathering legs and potentially damaging. So they dumped this 18-30 idea out to get everyone excited and kill the other debate. We are all constantly being manipulated, for good or ill, by the HSE and government as regards this issue.

So it's not really an issue of Donnelly's competence then?

roosh · 20-04-2021 12:06pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I wasn't speaking about this specific story , but we've had repeated instances where one Government rep says one thing and then shortly afterwards another rep says something slightly different.

Tbh, I haven't really been following the news for months. I just happened to hear something about this furore and wanted to look into it. What are those other instances?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

In terms of Donnelly and the interview - I couldn't care less what question he was asked - If a decision hadn't been confirmed then the answer is "I have no updates /information on that" not "Well we might make this change , or we might not but we'll have a chat about it" or whatever. Don't give oxygen to this stuff.

The point is that bringing up potential changes to the vaccine plan before they have been fully vetted and agreed - whether prompted or unprompted is a PR/Communications failure.

He may have been asked a question to which he has responded openly and honestly. Personally, I would prefer that to the non-answers politicians usually give.

The PR disaster appears to be entirely manufactured by the media, as far as I can see. And incidents like this is the reason politicians give non-answers in interviews bcos what they say is selectively quoted with little or no context given.

If the Irish Times article had mentioned that what Donnelly had said was suggested in the National Vaccination Strategy back in December, then it would be a complete non-story.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

What is needed here and has always been needed is clear, concise and consistent messaging - They have generally failed in that regard.

How do you have clear, concise, and consistent messaging around a fluid, complex, and dynamic situation? It was easy when all we had to do was "stay at home and wash your hands" but now everyone is clamouring for special treatment when it comes to vaccines and re-opening.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think that they have been doing a pretty decent job in terms of the actual work of getting the vaccinations done, given the supply issues and safety delays etc. Our % completion rates etc. measure up pretty well within the rest of the EU.

However , they've done a pretty poor job of managing the messaging around it , making life much more difficult for themselves as a result.

It's probably bcos I haven't been following it closely enough but how has their messaging been poor?

I know they said they were going to vaccinate teachers first and changed that, but to me that's just a case of following the medical advice. Determining the best vaccine rollout strategy is a fluid situation. If the evidence suggests it should be changed, then we shouldn't stick to the old plan just bcos people don't like change.

There was probably an element of telling the teachers what they wanted to hear, in order to get them back into classrooms also.

Have there been other examples?

20-04-2021 12:41pm

L1011 wrote: »

What count you're elected on is utterly irrelevant.

Nobody ever made an issue of it before SF forgot to run enough candidates and they will desperately regret doing so when SF do run enough and get people elected on later counts next time out.

It absolutely is irrelevant.
Your the 14th choice in your area. Basically elected because some people just tick all the boxes.
14th best according to his constitute and has been given the most power of anybody in this history of this country. Think about it.

Quin_Dub · 20-04-2021 12:52pm

tommybrees wrote: »

It absolutely is irrelevant.
Your the 14th choice in your area. Basically elected because some people just tick all the boxes.
14th best according to his constitute and has been given the most power of anybody in this history of this country. Think about it.

That's just not how voting works at all.

At worst he was 3rd (or 4th, can't remember how many seats in his constituency) choice.

Very few seats are filled on the 1st count in Ireland and a significant proportion of them would be filled after 8+ counts given how the system works.

L1011 · 20-04-2021 12:54pm

tommybrees wrote: »

It absolutely is irrelevant.
Your the 14th choice in your area. Basically elected because some people just tick all the boxes.
14th best according to his constitute and has been given the most power of anybody in this history of this country. Think about it.

Your first line agrees with me (I think you meant relevant); and the rest of your post shows you know absolutely nothing about how STV works.

No constituency has 14 seats, no '14th choice' gets elected.

However, the 9th elected in a 9 seat council ward is as legitimately elected as the first; and indeed if they're in a party their party may have significantly more support in that area than a party with one candidate elected earlier.

Donnelly was fifth on the first count, in a five seat constituency. He ended up with the fourth most votes. The person in 14th, the PBP candidate, went out on the 8th count; with the first five counts being used to distribute SFs surplus and eliminate people with tiny numbers of votes.

If SF ran two candidates in Wicklow in 2020 and cleanly managed the split, Simon Harris would probably have been the first elected after 10+ counts

blackwhite · 20-04-2021 5:28pm

tommybrees wrote: »

It absolutely is irrelevant.
Your the 14th choice in your area. Basically elected because some people just tick all the boxes.
14th best according to his constitute and has been given the most power of anybody in this history of this country. Think about it.

It's quite the indictment of our education system that someone can be entitled to a vote yet have such a ridiculously poor understanding of the voting system.

hiptobesquare · 26-04-2021 12:12pm

https://freepress.ie/2021/04/stephendonnelly/

Accusations of conservatism or right leaning aside, some very fair comparisons here between Donnelly & Buttigieg). And alot more besides. Donnelly seems to have a number of different stories about how and why he got into politics for example. And in one video he says mckinsey paid for harvard, in another he says he nearly bankrupted his wife and family for studying there. Plus, McKinsey would never take someone back to put them through harvard for just one year in return...alot of very unusual stuff here that can't be waved away

"Despite having no work experience in Health Stephen Donnelly became Ireland’s Health Minister in June of 2020, sponsored by the Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin. Senior ministries in Ireland are often run by unqualified suits on behalf of our civil-service swamp. Ireland’s scandal-ridden health department is no different, having been stewarded by a long succession of highly-networked incompetents installed as departmental figureheads for decades.

Even so, Stephen Donnelly’s fast-tracked appointment managed to stand out after his unusual first eight years in politics. At the time Ireland was supposedly in the middle of the most serious health crisis to hit the country since the genocidal potato famine of the 1840’s. Better political options with useful Health Department knowledge were definitely available to Martin – yet for some reason he decided to give Stephen Donnelly the nod.

Donnelly had proven himself to have no moral compass by joining Fianna Fail in 2017. Up to that point he had spent his entire political career telling the Irish media how utterly corrupt and irredeemable Fianna Fail were. There was understandable outrage throughout Fianna Fail at Donnelly’s appointment, awarded at the expense of long-serving and capable politicians like party-loyalist Darragh Calleary. Donnelly was awarded his most essential of positions despite his only real-world experience coming from two stints as a Management consultant at McKinsey – arguably the most scandal-ridden company in modern history."

PhilOssophy · 26-04-2021 12:26pm

blackwhite wrote: »

It's quite the indictment of our education system that someone can be entitled to a vote yet have such a ridiculously poor understanding of the voting system.

Democracy is dangerous in the wrong hands!

PhilOssophy · 26-04-2021 12:28pm

Re Stephen Donnelly, people just love to be outraged about things.
The worst thing you do in Ireland as a politician is ask "could we do something better" because Irish people just don't like that sort of scenario investigation.
Best to just give the chumps what they want and be quiet.

hiptobesquare · 26-04-2021 12:47pm

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Re Stephen Donnelly, people just love to be outraged about things.
The worst thing you do in Ireland as a politician is ask "could we do something better" because Irish people just don't like that sort of scenario investigation.
Best to just give the chumps what they want and be quiet.

He doesnt do anything better though. He was known for not attennding most finance committee meetings. And why was he made health minister in what is apparently the most dangerous pandemic ever ( we are told) despite zero experience? Bizarre

PhilOssophy · 26-04-2021 1:03pm

hiptobesquare wrote: »

He doesnt do anything better though. He was known for not attennding most finance committee meetings. And why was he made health minister in what is apparently the most dangerous pandemic ever ( we are told) despite zero experience? Bizarre

How did the last medical professionals get on as Minister for health?
It is a disastrous portfolio and no matter who is minister, it will always be so as long as the union stranglehold is there.

screamer · 26-04-2021 1:14pm

The health portfolio is a poison chalice and always has been. Therefore, you give it to someone you see as most expendable or your biggest rival politically speaking.
I do think though, that Harris was better as a figure head for the health portfolio than Donnelly, and being honest, there’s so much crap that any incoming minister inherits, the person who will really be able to reform health is one who has no vested interest in being re-elected, so they can do the heavy work that’s badly needed to reform that area. Unfortunately so far, it’s just career politician after career politician and no change has been the predictable outcome.

cute geoge · 26-04-2021 1:45pm

One thing that stands to donnelly in my opinion is he stuck to his guns on the hotel quarantine issue it is a couple of weeks now since we have had the high court challanges to it so it looks like he has done a mighty good job on that .In hindsight if simon harris had brought in the hotel quarantine march 2020 we would have being in a great place in regard covid but harris done a good job otherwise

PhilOssophy · 26-04-2021 2:16pm

screamer wrote: »

The health portfolio is a poison chalice and always has been. Therefore, you give it to someone you see as most expendable or your biggest rival politically speaking.
I do think though, that Harris was better as a figure head for the health portfolio than Donnelly, and being honest, there’s so much crap that any incoming minister inherits, the person who will really be able to reform health is one who has no vested interest in being re-elected, so they can do the heavy work that’s badly needed to reform that area. Unfortunately so far, it’s just career politician after career politician and no change has been the predictable outcome.

And unfortunately it is probably a 10+ year mission, rather than a 3-4 year one.

breezy1985 · 26-04-2021 2:32pm

Any time this thread pops up I assume he has switched party again

jimmycrackcorm · 26-04-2021 3:15pm

cute geoge wrote:

One thing that stands to donnelly in my opinion is he stuck to his guns on the hotel quarantine issue it is a couple of weeks now since we have had the high court challanges to it so it looks like he has done a mighty good job on that .In hindsight if simon harris had brought in the hotel quarantine march 2020 we would have being in a great place in regard covid but harris done a good job otherwise

The mandatory hotel quarantine was a ridiculous populist idea.

Compare that in traveling you have to have A negative test and religiously wear a mask to the scenes we saw in stephens green at the weekend.

hiptobesquare · 27-04-2021 4:22pm

cute geoge wrote: »

One thing that stands to donnelly in my opinion is he stuck to his guns on the hotel quarantine issue it is a couple of weeks now since we have had the high court challanges to it so it looks like he has done a mighty good job on that .In hindsight if simon harris had brought in the hotel quarantine march 2020 we would have being in a great place in regard covid but harris done a good job otherwise

how can anyone say harris has done a good job on anything after the organised wholesale robbery of the childrens hospital. It literally couldn't be any more obvious that it was robbery

hiptobesquare · 27-04-2021 4:23pm

SNIP. Please stop posting the same link repeatedly.

Stephen Donnelly

Comments