Róisín Shortall Resigns As Junior Health Minister

Bannasidhe · 26-09-2012 11:20PM

humbert wrote: »

It's another good example of why more legislation isn't helpful.

or another example of lack of enforcement of existing legislation.

syklops · 26-09-2012 11:21PM

elviscostello wrote: »

So she should just stay and do what she is told?

.

No. She should stay and fight. Stay until O'Reilly has to fire her. That would do more for her cause than just simply leaving the pitch and going home.

humbert · 26-09-2012 11:22PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

or another example of lack of enforcement of existing legislation.

That's my point.

Dangerous Man · 26-09-2012 11:25PM

I didn't always agree with her but I found her honesty refreshing. I'm disappointed that she's resigned as we need people like her now more than ever, especially given who we currently have as a health minister.

He's worse than Harney.

R0ot · 26-09-2012 11:27PM

Millicent wrote: »

This is a crying shame. How sickening to see a politician with decency, honesty and integrity pushed out of her position by that odious excuse for a Health Minister abusing his position to soap up constituents. I was hoping she might turn the tide for that sort of parish pump politics but I had a sinking feeling last week that her days were numbered.

Or a very smart person who knows when to get out with a failing party and have a chance of being re-elected because of this "stance" early on rather than cursing it during election time.

dirtyden · 26-09-2012 11:30PM

Dangerous Man wrote: »

I didn't always agree with her but I found her honesty refreshing. I'm disappointed that she's resigned as we need people like her now more than ever, especially given who we currently have as a health minister.

He's worse than Harney.

I thought both himself and Harney had reasonable intentions. The health service is a can of worms though. It needs someone with a backbone of pure steel to tackle the engrained cultural issues. Both Harney and Reilly are way too weak willed for that.

Shortall is just playing politics in my opinion. More worried about 2 yrs time than her principles. A principled public servant would have given up her teaching job when she got elected.

26-09-2012 11:30PM

She was going to ruin the craic with her alcohol pricing nonsense and ban on advertising so I'm not going to get too upset if her resignation means the end of these plans.

Millicent · 26-09-2012 11:31PM

R0ot wrote: »

Or a very smart person who knows when to get out with a failing party and have a chance of being re-elected because of this "stance" early on rather than cursing it during election time.

Let's be honest. Her card was marked the second she spoke up about James Reilly. I remember saying it last week when I heard calls for a resignation, that it would not be Reilly who would be on the receiving end of that boot. Sorry to be proved right.

Millicent · 26-09-2012 11:34PM

Cory Short Shrapnel wrote: »

She was going to ruin the craic with her alcohol pricing nonsense and ban on advertising so I'm not going to get too upset if her resignation means the end of these plans.

Oh no, someone might not let us all drink ourselves into an early grave. Thank God that party pooper has been shoved out in favour of someone who was admittedly manipulating the system for the good of his friends.

Pottler · 26-09-2012 11:37PM

Side Show Bob wrote: »

Eh... What... she's 3 sheets me thinks

Jasus, that's outrageous. One sheet dos plenty, as everyone knows.

marcsignal · 26-09-2012 11:37PM

Does this mean Off Licences can stay open after 22:00hr now ??

Bullseye1 · 26-09-2012 11:37PM

No fan or either Shorthall or Reilly but it has to be said the Health Department is is poisoned chalice. So many people in there looking after their own interests (understandably) but they have thrown the next generation to the wolves. No solidarity there.

Biggins · 26-09-2012 11:42PM

Duiske wrote: »

Wasn't it heartening to see her party colleagues, including my local Labour TD, speaking tonight about how great a Minister she was, and what a great job she was doing. What a bunch of backstabbing, power hungry muppets.

Welcome to Irish politics old style.

Dangerous Man · 26-09-2012 11:43PM

dirtyden wrote: »

I thought both himself and Harney had reasonable intentions. The health service is a can of worms though. It needs someone with a backbone of pure steel to tackle the engrained cultural issues. Both Harney and Reilly are way too weak willed for that.

Shortall is just playing politics in my opinion. More worried about 2 yrs time than her principles. A principled public servant would have given up her teaching job when she got elected.

Yeah - but Reilly was in Stubbe's and this debacle regarding the primary care centres reeks of good old-fashioned strokery.

I hated Harney and what she stood for but at least she stood for it honestly, from what I could tell. I don't trust Reilly one iota.

palmcut · 26-09-2012 11:45PM

Are any of the other PC centres political choices?

Millicent · 26-09-2012 11:49PM

palmcut wrote: »

Are any of the other PC centres political choices?

What? Seriously, I have read this four times now and I have no idea what it means.

ETA: Sorry, Palmcut. Explained below.

Jimoslimos · 26-09-2012 11:53PM

Wow! The hatred on display here because she had the cheek to tackle the problems we have with that Irish sacred cow, alcohol. Fine, disagree with her methods but at least she was attempting to act in the national interest rather than the sneaky underhand parish pump politics of Reilly.

Make no mistake, Reilly has always looked after number 1. The praise he gets from media and public alike surprises me. Maybe you'd need to be from his constituency to see through his bluster.

Jimoslimos · 26-09-2012 11:54PM

Millicent wrote: »

What? Seriously, I have read this four times now and I have no idea what it means.

PC = primary care

Pherekydes · 26-09-2012 11:54PM

Millicent wrote: »

What? Seriously, I have read this four times now and I have no idea what it means.

Are any of the other Primary Care Centres choices of politicians?

starbelgrade · 26-09-2012 11:55PM

yoyo wrote: »

Setting a minimum price for drink won't stop alcoholism, nor will it stop binge drinking. All it means is people that enjoy a drink responsibly have to pay more, because some ejits can't handle it. Considering most alcohol related medical issues are probably as a result of people who drank in pubs/clubs, I don't see the benfit of just attacking the off trade prices.

How do you know that setting a minimum price for drink wouldn't have an effect on people's drinking habits? I don't think you do.

Personally, I don't know either, but when you see that the UK are researching similar methods, you have to at least acknowledge that it might be something worth investigating.

While the logic in stating that a price increase will punish those who don't abuse alcohol is true, I don't see it as a valid argument if it can be proven that an introduction of a minimum price for alcohol actually does reduce problem drinking.

26-09-2012 11:55PM

God, it's shocking seeing all the people here supporting Shortall's insufferable nanny state policies. Minimum pricing and a ban on alcohol advertising were foolish from both an economic and civil liberties perspective.

Anyway though, fair play for standing up for her principles and all but Shortall was Minister of State with responsibility for Primary Care since early 2011-what meaningful reforms have taken place in that sector since then? I can't really think of any. I know there was plans to extend free GP care to long term ill, which I agreed with, but AFAIK that has been delayed/shelved.

Millicent · 27-09-2012 12:00AM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

This is the same lady that claimed pot gives you throat and lung cancer. She was a spoofer, good luck and good riddance.

Have you got any proof that it doesn't? Because from what I can tell, it does, particularly for lung cancer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18283689

http://www.aurorahealthcare.org/yourhealth/healthgate/getcontent.asp?URLhealthgate=11509.html

I'd be really interested in where you got the information that cannabis is non-carcinogenic.

Millicent · 27-09-2012 12:02AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

How do you know that setting a minimum price for drink wouldn't have an effect on people's drinking habits? I don't think you do.

Personally, I don't know either, but when you see that the UK are researching similar methods, you have to at least acknowledge that it might be something worth investigating.

While the logic in stating that a price increase will punish those who don't abuse alcohol is true, I don't see it as a valid argument if it can be proven that an introduction of a minimum price for alcohol actually does reduce problem drinking.

Just to back up your point, there seems to be some positive effects of minimum pricing from one UK study:

http://www.alcoholpolicy.net/2008/12/report-highlights-efficacy-of-pricing-measures-on-alcohol-consumption-and-harm-.html

Lowers crime, lowers health issues, lowers consumption, saves jobs, etc.

yoyo · 27-09-2012 12:06AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

How do you know that setting a minimum price for drink wouldn't have an effect on people's drinking habits? I don't think you do.

Personally, I don't know either, but when you see that the UK are researching similar methods, you have to at least acknowledge that it might be something worth investigating.

While the logic in stating that a price increase will punish those who don't abuse alcohol is true, I don't see it as a valid argument if it can be proven that an introduction of a minimum price for alcohol actually does reduce problem drinking.

Because I know of alcoholics who never drank "cheap" booze at home, spent all day in the pub. Cost wasn't an issue for them as they were addicted, same way as an alcoholic won't stop drinking (or should I say can't) if they can't afford it as they could die.
In the UK they wanted to do something that we already have here, stronger lagers and ciders should cost more. Over there you can get cans of 9% lager, essentially barley wine.
These were available for the same price as 4 cans of normal strength beer. In the UK the normal strenth beers in the 4-5% range remained untouched. Over here the nearest equivelent is Bavaria 8.6 (7.9%) which costs a tenner for 4 in my local Spar so looks like we are already "ok" in that sense.
If some pubs can afford to sell pints for 2/3€ given the service they provide I can't see how the price of €1 a can which is average for the cheap beers is too cheap. Put it up 50c, it won't stop the problem drinkers, just the people who sit down to a €10 bottle of wine will be splashing out an extra €5/6 or more needlessly due to nanny state ideologies.

Nick

starbelgrade · 27-09-2012 12:10AM

gaffer91 wrote: »

Minimum pricing and a ban on alcohol advertising were foolish from both an economic and civil liberties perspective.

Supermarkets use below cost selling of alcohol as a loss leader. The loss they make on the booze, they make up for on spreading this loss out on the price of other products. Your shopping list subsidises other people's drinking, or your own, as the case may be.

Nightclubs sell below cost alcohol to young people to get them through the doors at inflated prices & couldn't give a toss about their duty of care, which is to ensure they don't leave absolutely fucking hammered.

I don't see how outlawing these practices is in any way a breach of civil liberties. If anything, they seem like progressive social moves. And if that has an economic cost, then so be it - the welfare of people is a more important than money.

Millicent · 27-09-2012 12:14AM

yoyo wrote: »

Put it up 50c, it won't stop the problem drinkers, just the people who sit down to a €10 bottle of wine will be splashing out an extra €5/6 or more needlessly due to nanny state ideologies.

Nick

That's not how the policy was going to work. It was minimum pricing on alcohol, i.e. a base price that alcohol could not be sold under to stop below cost alcohol sales. Where are you getting that €5/6 figure on a €10 bottle of wine from? It's only very cheap drink which is affected.

Red wine would have a floor price of of €4.40 and white wine a floor price of €3.60.

Link.

starbelgrade · 27-09-2012 12:17AM

yoyo wrote: »

Because I know of alcoholics who never drank "cheap" booze at home, spent all day in the pub.

In fairness, this is hardly a scientific study.

I did a quick Google earlier on the effects the minimum price / increase in prices has on the consumption of alcohol and there are literally hundreds of studies and research papers available.

I didn't read any of them because I don't have the time, but I also think that if you're going to make blanket statements as if they were facts you should really have more to back it up than anecdotal stories.

27-09-2012 12:22AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

Supermarkets use below cost selling of alcohol as a loss leader. The loss they make on the booze, they make up for on spreading this loss out on the price of other products. Your shopping list subsidises other people's drinking, or your own, as the case may be.

Nightclubs sell below cost alcohol to young people to get them through the doors at inflated prices & couldn't give a toss about their duty of care, which is to ensure they don't leave absolutely fucking hammered.

How much below cost selling actually occurs in nightclubs/supermarkets? I can't say I really notice any discernible difference in price between off licences (who for obvious reasons can't use it as a loss leader), and supermarkets, and I've certainly never heard of nightclubs doing it. If you give me a link I might have to change my mind though.

In fairness though, even factoring in healthcare and policing costs I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the alcohol industry is anything but an economic good when you take into account the amount of VAT, rent, rates, jobs etc it generates.

starbelgrade wrote: »

I don't see how outlawing these practices is in any way a breach of civil liberties. If anything, they seem like progressive social moves. And if that has an economic cost, then so be it - the welfare of people is a more important than money.

I'd have to disagree there I'm afraid. Without trying to go off on a big spiel here, I would say left wing and liberal used to be synonymous. However in recent years left wing parties seem to have swapped their admirable social liberalism for a nauseating kind of nanny statism which I simply abhor. If people want to go out and get smashed, off with them. I don't see it as the government's duty to "protect people from themselves".

Cookie_Monster · 27-09-2012 12:25AM

So resigning from a position where she actually had to do something but keeping the seat and all it's perks to fade into the backbench TD group. Hardly standing up for principals is it?
If she had any balls she would have resigned as TD as well rather than staying on the gravy train.

Millicent · 27-09-2012 12:25AM

gaffer91 wrote: »

I'd have to disagree there I'm afraid. Without trying to go off on a big spiel here, I would say left wing and liberal used to be synonymous. However in recent years left wing parties seem to have swapped their admirable social liberalism for a nauseating kind of nanny statism which I simply abhor. If people want to go out and get smashed, off with them. I don't see it as the government's duty to "protect people from themselves".

That's exactly the government's duty when it comes to public health.

Róisín Shortall Resigns As Junior Health Minister

Comments