General Election and Government Formation Megathread (see post #1)

tobsey · 24-02-2020 1:04am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The issue was that early signs of cancer were missed , picked up in subsequent tests, and the women concerned were not told.

In fact, senior health practitioners warned Mary Harney in 2008 that outsourcing screening to the US could result in up too 1,000 early warning signs being missed per year. She was warned it was against best medical practice and went ahead anyway. That is not the sign of a good minister for health.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/warning-against-smear-test-outsourcing-1.822846?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fwarning-against-smear-test-outsourcing-1.822846

and why did the medical experts warn Minister Harney?
Let's see what Doctor David Gibbons chair of the cytology/histology group in the quality assurance committee of the National Cervical Screening Program had to say.

https://www.thejournal.ie/smear-tests-outsourced-missing-3985784-Apr2018/

They warned that up to 1000 per year would be missed, so by 2018 up to 10,000 would be missed. In reality it was 208. How that would have compared to the performance of an Irish based lab I don’t know. I’m guessing Harney had other information available.

The US company came in at a third of the price of the Irish labs in the tender. So if we had paid 3 times the amount then maybe some of these women wouldn’t have died. We could treble the budget of the entire health system somehow and people would still die that shouldn’t. Saying someone has blood on their hands over a decision like that shows a lack of understanding of how policy decisions are made.

mr_fegelien · 24-02-2020 7:07am

I voted Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail but was told that was a nonsensical choice as they are ideologically incompatible. Is this true?

Peregrinus · 24-02-2020 7:23am

mr_fegelien wrote: »

I voted Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail but was told that was a nonsensical choice as they are ideologically incompatible. Is this true?

Even if it were true it would not make your choice nonsensical. Whoever told you this does not understand how the single transferable vote works. Pay them no mind.

mr_fegelien · 24-02-2020 8:46am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even if it were true it would not make your choice nonsensical. Whoever told you this does not understand how the single transferable vote works. Pay them no mind.

But are they incompatible? Fianna Fail has ruled out a coalition with Sinn Fein

Peregrinus · 24-02-2020 9:00am

Parties may rule out coalitions with one another for reasons other than ideological incompatibility.

Sam Russell · 24-02-2020 11:05am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How many women have died thanks to Mary Harney the MoH who outsourced cervical cancer screening to save money?
How much did she save in the long-term?

"Not a complete success" is, imo, spitting on the women whose lives she valued so little.

There is a complete misunderstanding of the screening process, be it cervical, breast, prostate, or colon.

Screening is a public health initiative to look at a selected at risk population to determine the presence of certain conditions with the intention of having early detection of those conditions. Then with this information, early interventions can start and this should result in better outcomes for those patients and overall savings for the HSE.

Screening is not diagnostic - merely indicative. If 10,000 people are screened and 100 are found to require further investigation, then that is what happens. Some of that 100 may refuse or decline further action. Some of the 100 will be false positives. Some of the 9,900 not found positive may in fact be positive (false negative) but they are in the same position had the screening not be carried out.

Now the theory of screening is that it provides better outcomes for the population as a whole, lower overall costs for the health service as it is less costly to have early intervention, and it improves general health in the population. It is only provided to a section of the population that is at risk. For example there is no breast screening for men as although there are cases of male breast cancer they are very few and so such screening would be a waste of time and money.

The problem arose because the screening was sold as diagnostic. The attempt to reduce costs by outsourcing the lab work was not successful as it turned out due the the differing standards between Europe and the USA. A lesson to be learned.

Mary Harney's legacy is more on the consultants pay level. As a result of her war with them, we have significant vacancies of consultants all over the health service in important disciplines. As a result, we aslo have too few beds, and too few front line staff, with A&E stuffed with patients making working for staff impossible.

However, subsequent ministers have added their own problems to the current situation. For example, giving free GP cover for children has resulted in overburdened GPs as they have not had extra resources to cope, but there are many other examples.

Bannasidhe · 24-02-2020 11:30am

markodaly wrote: »

In fairness, you have been giving out yarns about how FF and FG wont go into a coaltion government with SF.
Now when your beloved SD state similar about FF and FG you defend it.

Hypocrite much?

There now, you found me out.
My 'beloved' SDs who my father voted for and his father before him back into the mists of time refuse to go into govt with either FF of the Galway Tent, Brown Envelopes, and Tribunals or FG of the Fascist past, Fraudulent Insurance Claims/ Freeloading TDS, and Ministers of Justice Resigning Under a Cloud as they have declared both parties "unfit" to take part in the democratic process.

Oh... hang on. That's not what happened.

The SDs aren't interested as they believe their voters voted for a change in political direction towards a more left leaning govt and that since - in their opinion -neither FG or FF (due to their combined stranglehold on power since the formation of the State and their shared neo-liberal political ideology) are capable of changing direction and veering left - and indeed why should they? It's not where their voter base lies.

FF and FG, however, did declare SF "unfit" to take part in the democratic process and claimed this was why they would not go into coalition with them.
And that was what I objected to.

Disingenuous much?

Bannasidhe · 24-02-2020 11:44am

tobsey wrote: »

They warned that up to 1000 per year would be missed, so by 2018 up to 10,000 would be missed. In reality it was 208. How that would have compared to the performance of an Irish based lab I don’t know. I’m guessing Harney had other information available.

The US company came in at a third of the price of the Irish labs in the tender. So if we had paid 3 times the amount then maybe some of these women wouldn’t have died. We could treble the budget of the entire health system somehow and people would still die that shouldn’t. Saying someone has blood on their hands over a decision like that shows a lack of understanding of how policy decisions are made.

He said could be missed.
Since your whole argument there is based on you claiming Dr Gibbons said would be missed it's void.

The fact is it was missed and 20 women are dead who need not be dead, and then the cock-up was compounded by non-disclosure.
There were multiple misread smear tests by US labs who work on a 1 year test cycle not the 3 years we use - US labs who were contracted by Minister Harney against the advice of the medical experts who warned this could happen.

Now we are going to have yet another tribunal as the cost of how many millions?

When policy is decided by a minister with no expertise in the field against the advice of the experts as all that minister is interested in is cost cutting than it explains a hell of a lot about why so much of our State mechanisms are in a critical condition.

And why so many voters are fed up of being treated as nothing more than income/expenditure on a government spreadsheet.

loyatemu · 24-02-2020 12:45pm

what do the SDs think is going to happen? There will be a FF/FG arrangement and that could be it for the next 5 years. No SD policies enacted, but glorious purity in opposition. Of there will be another election which is unlikely to yield significantly different results.

Bannasidhe · 24-02-2020 12:52pm

loyatemu wrote: »

what do the SDs think is going to happen? There will be a FF/FG arrangement and that could be it for the next 5 years. No SD policies enacted, but glorious purity in opposition. Of there will be another election which is unlikely to yield significantly different results.

Why should the SDs compromise on their political ideology when FF and FG won't?
What would they gain by going into govt with FF/FG/GP who would have 84 seats and therefore a majority govt?
One thing they would certainly gain is the loss of their existing support base.
Then they really would be the Purple Labour Party.

Water John · 24-02-2020 12:55pm

I think the SD would be better off going in, as long as the Greens are there too. That is with FF + FG. They could get a number of key policies implemented for both smaller parties. They should insist on key cabinet subcommittees be formed on housing and health, in which all 4 parties participate.
Bannasidhe, FF will bend with the wind, no ideological hang ups, FG a bit more dogmatic. But Greens and SD could have FF and MM onside.

Bannasidhe · 24-02-2020 1:05pm

Water John wrote: »

I think the SD would be better off going in, as long as the Greens are there too. That is with FF + FG. They could get a number of key policies implemented for both smaller parties. They should insist on key cabinet subcommittees be formed on housing and health, in which all 4 parties participate.

They obviously disagree.
I am inclined to agree with them.
As their 6 votes would not be 'needed' I suspect they would just become the mudguard.

Plus - as they have stated several times, they believe their increased vote was a clear vote in favour of an alternative to FF/FG. To then become part of an FF/FG govt would be to fly in the face of that. Now, while this is common practice in Irish politics it would be nice to see a party that says something and sticks to it. Something the LP had trouble doing.

Bit like FG saying they won't go into govt with SF. They have been clear and unequivocal about that - bunkum about not being SF being "unfit" notwithstanding - and I can respect that.

MM wavered just after the count when he panicked and thought SF might be his only way to power after years in the wilderness (they still might be...:P). He did it straight to camera. Bad move. Made him look weak,needy, and desperate to get into govt. Rolling back on that since compounded the issue.

loyatemu · 24-02-2020 1:20pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why should the SDs compromise on their political ideology when FF and FG won't?
What would they gain by going into govt with FF/FG/GP who would have 84 seats and therefore a majority govt?
One thing they would certainly gain is the loss of their existing support base.
Then they really would be the Purple Labour Party.

they have 6 seats, or 4% of the Dáil. If they got say 8% of their policies into a program for govt that would be a good result for them. If the Greens, who would have similar policies in certain areas, are also involved then they may be able to steer the program even further in their direction.

In opposition they will get 0% of their policies enacted. What have SPBP ever achieved by staying in perpetual opposition; sure they've kept their "existing support base", but to what end?

markodaly · 24-02-2020 1:33pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The SDs aren't interested as they believe their voters voted for a change in political direction towards a more left leaning govt and that since - in their opinion -neither FG or FF (due to their combined stranglehold on power since the formation of the State and their shared neo-liberal political ideology) are capable of changing direction and veering left - and indeed why should they? It's not where their voter base lies.

FF and FG both told their voters they will not go into government with SF. That is where their voter base lies.
Why is it OK for the SD's to be loyal to their voter base, but not FF or FG.
Square that circle for me.

FF and FG, however, did declare SF "unfit" to take part in the democratic process and claimed this was why they would not go into coalition with them.
And that was what I objected to.

You are being shy with the truth here, which reading many of your posts appears to be a habit.
FG stated that they were economically and policy-wise incompatible, they never said they were unfit to be in the 'democratic process'.

Sam Russell · 24-02-2020 1:34pm

loyatemu wrote: »

they have 6 seats, or 4% of the Dáil. If they got say 8% of their policies into a program for govt that would be a good result for them. If the Greens, who would have similar policies in certain areas, are also involved then they may be able to steer the program even further in their direction.

In opposition they will get 0% of their policies enacted. What have SPBP ever achieved by staying in perpetual opposition; sure they've kept their "existing support base", but to what end?

I think that the GP, LP, and the SDP should form a close block of 24 seats and keep together as a block on which they agree red lines for their policies to enter Gov and keep unified on policies throughout their involvement as issues evolve. A solid leftish platform would be change enough for the electorate. Housing, health, and public transport infrastructure is what is called for by the electorate. They need to deliver that by getting the relevant ministries..

This would avoid the 'mudguard' position, but they must be prepared to walk away if there is slippage from FF or FG. The GP lost a huge amount of credibility when the crash came but were unwilling to walk out and force Cowen and his inept FF crew to take the full blame.

StupidLikeAFox · 24-02-2020 1:36pm

loyatemu wrote: »

what do the SDs think is going to happen? There will be a FF/FG arrangement and that could be it for the next 5 years. No SD policies enacted, but glorious purity in opposition. Of there will be another election which is unlikely to yield significantly different results.

SDs won't have much influence in this type of coalition, they will need to compromise so will end up losing their own supporters but unlikely to pick up any further supporters. It happened with Labour and they had a much bigger mandate than SDs. How many of their policies would they have implemented if they get wiped out at the next election?

FrancieBrady · 24-02-2020 1:37pm

markodaly wrote: »

FF and FG both told their voters they will not go into government with SF. That is where their voter base lies.
Why is it OK for the SD's to be loyal to their voter base, but not FF or FG.
Square that circle for me.

You are being shy with the truth here, which reading many of your posts appears to be a habit.
FG stated that they were economically and policy-wise incompatible, they never said they were unfit to be in the 'democratic process'.

SD rep on The Week In Politics said last night, they have no problem talking to individual parties but will not go in to government with FG/FF together.

Bannasidhe · 24-02-2020 1:37pm

markodaly wrote: »

FF and FG both told their voters they will not go into government with SF. That is where their voter base lies.
Why is it OK for the SD's to be loyal to their voter base, but not FF or FG.
Square that circle for me.

You are being shy with the truth here, which reading many of your posts appears to be a habit.
FG stated that they were economically and policy-wise incompatible, they never said they were unfit to be in the 'democratic process'.

If you wish me to engage with you dial down the personal digs.

Pascal Donohoe

"They are not a party that are fit for government and we will not be serving in government with them."

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/paschal-donohoe-says-sinn-fein-not-fit-for-government-837168.html

Bass Reeves · 24-02-2020 1:39pm

loyatemu wrote: »

they have 6 seats, or 4% of the Dáil. If they got say 8% of their policies into a program for govt that would be a good result for them. If the Greens, who would have similar policies in certain areas, are also involved then they may be able to steer the program even further in their direction.

In opposition they will get 0% of their policies enacted. What have SPBP ever achieved by staying in perpetual opposition; sure they've kept their "existing support base", but to what end?

This is a huge issue with left wing politics. It is splintered into do many different parties with different sub left agenda's. Most of these do not understand the vast majority of people do not want hard left agenda's.

This puts softer left parties with am issue, do they try to coalesce with centerist parties to implement some of there policies or do they wait for s majority left government to implement.

The issue with this is will harder left parties if a left government was formed accept middle of the road left policies or would they want to implement policies the vast majority of the voters do not want.

In Britain such policies make Labour unelectable as under Corbyn and previously under Neill Kinnock and Micheal Foote. At the same time political power and responsibility will be visited on SF at some stage in the next decade whether this is in the form of a left or centerist government will be interesting. SF is probably lucky this time such power and responsibility is not visited on it. FF has ducked out of this choice it will be interesting to see If SF modify it policies for to position itself for power in the next 5 years

markodaly · 24-02-2020 1:39pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SD rep on The Week In Politics said last night, they have no problem talking to individual parties but will not go in to government with FG/FF together.

And how does one have a government with just FG or FF alone?
The SD's are too small to be making big demands of the bigger parties.

An Ciarraioch · 24-02-2020 1:40pm

markodaly wrote: »

FF and FG both told their voters they will not go into government with SF. That is where their voter base lies.
Why is it OK for the SD's to be loyal to their voter base, but not FF or FG.
Square that circle for me.

You are being shy with the truth here, which reading many of your posts appears to be a habit.
FG stated that they were economically and policy-wise incompatible, they never said they were unfit to be in the 'democratic process'.

Mind you, FF also told their voters they will not go into government with FG.

Hodors Appletart · 24-02-2020 1:41pm

loyatemu wrote: »

In opposition they will get 0% of their policies enacted.

Not necessarily.

A FF/FG/GP government could very well take some parts of the SF/SD manifestos, tart them up and claim them as their own.

They'd be mad not to really.

An Ciarraioch · 24-02-2020 1:43pm

markodaly wrote: »

And how does one have a government with just FG or FF alone?
The SD's are too small to be making big demands of the bigger parties.

Either FF and FG could form a minority government with the centre-left parties, backed through confidence and supply by the other.

markodaly · 24-02-2020 1:45pm

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Either FF and FG could form a minority government with the centre-left parties, backed through confidence and supply by the other.

It could, but then isn't this exactly what it was last time out? Didn't the SD's say they want to be part of a strong government, which is code for a coalition?

FrancieBrady · 24-02-2020 1:48pm

markodaly wrote: »

And how does one have a government with just FG or FF alone?
The SD's are too small to be making big demands of the bigger parties.

They weren't 'making demands' They just stated their position on a FF/FG coalition. They are not touching it. Greens have yet to say what their view is.

An Ciarraioch · 24-02-2020 1:48pm

That would be a coalition of FF-Green-SD-Lab (61 seats), or 59 seats when FG replace FF.

is_that_so · 24-02-2020 2:35pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How many women have died thanks to Mary Harney the MoH who outsourced cervical cancer screening to save money?
How much did she save in the long-term?

"Not a complete success" is, imo, spitting on the women whose lives she valued so little.

And yet it's still largely outsourced. It was not the outsourcing that caused the problem, it was the lack of oversight. Harney was the driving force behind our cancer centres set-up, which has certainly saved lives and improved outcomes for many people. She has also been out of politics for a decade.

Bannasidhe · 24-02-2020 2:58pm

is_that_so wrote: »

And yet it's still largely outsourced. It was not the outsourcing that caused the problem, it was the lack of oversight. Harney was the driving force behind our cancer centres set-up, which has certainly saved lives and improved outcomes for many people. She has also been out of politics for a decade.

I'm not the one who brought her up.
I am simply saying she was not the best MoH we have had, cojones or not, and that her tenure created legacy issues that we are staying paying for (literally in the case of Cervical Cancer Checks).

And I will accept the opinion of the experts in the field that using labs used to a one year test cycle for a system of checks that employs a deep 3 year cycle creates issues that has zero to do with oversight.
Oversight was also an issue.
Which is why both US labs and the Irish State ended up having to pay money to Vicky Phelan and others.

Amirani · 24-02-2020 5:11pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The issue was that early signs of cancer were missed , picked up in subsequent tests, and the women concerned were not told.

In fact, senior health practitioners warned Mary Harney in 2008 that outsourcing screening to the US could result in up too 1,000 early warning signs being missed per year. She was warned it was against best medical practice and went ahead anyway. That is not the sign of a good minister for health.

This was not a finding from the Scally report. The Scally report also didn't recommended against outsourcing (to the US or otherwise) as there were not material differences in the results or performance between the 3 laboratories.

There were senior health practitioners on both sides of the outsourcing argument in 2008. The claim that 1000 early warning signs would be missed per year as a result of outsourcing, has in hindsight proved to be incorrect.

This is without getting into the discussion about whether it would actually have been feasible for Ireland to train/recruit the necessary numbers of trained staff to perform the tests when the programme was instituted. Currently the Coombe only has capability to cover about 10% of the case load.

Scally Report wrote:

I am satisfied with the quality management processes in the current laboratory sites i.e. CWIUH, Quest, and the Sonic Healthcare Laboratories, namely MLP and TDL. I am also satisfied that the quality management processes were adequate in the former provider, CPL in Austin, Texas, part of Sonic Healthcare...

The continuation of cervical screening in the coming months is of crucial importance. My Scoping Inquiry team has found no reason why the existing contracts for laboratory services should not continue until the new HPV regime is introduced.

I'm no great fan of Harney. But best stick to facts as espoused by the experts here.

Bannasidhe · 24-02-2020 5:30pm

Amirani wrote: »

This was not a finding from the Scally report. The Scally report also didn't recommended against outsourcing (to the US or otherwise) as there were not material differences in the results or performance between the 3 laboratories.

There were senior health practitioners on both sides of the outsourcing argument in 2008. The claim that 1000 early warning signs would be missed per year as a result of outsourcing, has in hindsight proved to be incorrect.

This is without getting into the discussion about whether it would actually have been feasible for Ireland to train/recruit the necessary numbers of trained staff to perform the tests when the programme was instituted. Currently the Coombe only has capability to cover about 10% of the case load.

I'm no great fan of Harney. But best stick to facts as espoused by the experts here.

Once again on a point of order: It was could not would. It makes a difference if one is constructing an argument around 'would'.

Medical experts are stating publicly they are against outsourcing:

Chairman of the NAGP [National Association of General Practitioners], Dr Andrew Jordan, does not believe testing should be outsourced.

Dr Jordan said: "Why aren't these tests being done here? I mean we have cytologists here in Ireland, they're accredited and they work in this environment and it would be much easier to pick up the phone if there was a concern.

"These smears have been outsourced for years, I presume the reason was cost, and at the time CervicalCheck was set up there were concerns raised."

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/why-arent-these-tests-being-done-here--gps-concerned-at-outsourcing-of-smear-tests-839876.html

There have been on-going issues with outsources labs that have made international news

From CNN

For months, Sharon had been anxiously waiting the results of her pap smear test.

She had taken the test back in December under Ireland's national cervical check screening program, and as she had taken it annually for years, she was expecting to receive the results back in six weeks' time.
When she hadn't received her results by the spring, Sharon, who Ireland's health authority identified only by her first name, started to worry. In April, after first contacting CervicalCheck, the screening program, she sent a series of emails to Ireland's Department of Health outlining her concerns regarding the significant delay. They told her there had been a general slowdown in turnaround for test results.
By June, after doggedly pursuing answers, officials from the screening program eventually admitted there had been a glitch, saying that "due to an IT issue in the laboratory" her results had never been issued.
And Sharon wasn't the only one.
Out of 4,088 women who had taken a smear test from December 2018 to July 2019, 873 hadn't received their tests, according to the MacCraith report, a review commissioned by the health authority into what had happened.
Days later, another woman identifying herself only as Ms. Scullion came forward to the Irish Times, exposing yet another mistake in the cervical screening process.
Scullion, like Sharon, was one of the 873 women who hadn't received her results for months. When she finally got the letter in August, it said that she had tested negative for human papilloma virus (HPV). But Scullion knows that she's HPV positive.
After she made her story public, Ireland's health service, the HSE, said that over 400 women had also received a letter with an "inaccuracy."

I do not wish to drag this thread off topic in a discussion of the cervical check scandal.
I will continue to maintain that Minister Harney was not the best MoH, she is the embodiment of when neo-liberal economic ideas are allowed to overrule best practice when it comes to the welfare of citizens.

The very same neo-liberal policies that have brought us a housing crises and fuelled the surge to SF and parties of the Left.

General Election and Government Formation Megathread (see post #1)

Comments