Liz McManus - Patrionising Politician

ateam

Did anyone see Prime Time tonight? Mary Harney and Liz McManus were on talking about health. Does anyone else think that McManus comes across as so patrionising in the way she speaks? I remember a couple of years ago during a referendum debate on the Late Late, she advised voters that if they didn't understand or know what the referendum was about, just to simply vote no. So instead of explaining what the referendum was about, she encouraged the ignorant to remain ignorant and simply to vote no.

On a related issue, Labour's health policy came under serious pressure tonight from Harney. The co-location scheme is practical and if Labour put an objective hat on, they would agree with it.

Villain

Well I think I would describe her tone as relaxed and calm, compared to Mary Harney who seemed quite annoyed.

aequinoctium

mcmanus and labour have no idea what it is like to run a government. it has been far too long since they were in charge. they have no point of reference!

stepbar

Eh, Liz Mc Manus is a PD...... who are in Government, Yes?

ateam

stepbar wrote:

Eh, Liz Mc Manus is a PD...... who are in Government, Yes?

That's Liz O'Donnell.

county

aequinoctium wrote:

mcmanus and labour have no idea what it is like to run a government. it has been far too long since they were in charge. they have no point of reference!

what a silly point,so FF/PD should be in government from now till eternity? because no one else has a clue

aequinoctium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_McManus

liz mcmanus is the labour spokesperson on health

aequinoctium

the point is that they cannot claim incompetence or draw up a perfect solution when they do not know what the job is like first hand...it's very demanding and the pressure is enormous.

it's easy to shout from across the dáil

Time Magazine

aequinoctium wrote:

it's easy to shout from across the dáil

Not with the current Ceann Comhairle it's not!

county

aequinoctium wrote:

the point is that they cannot claim incompetence or draw up a perfect solution when they do not know what the job is like first hand...it's very demanding and the pressure is enormous.

it's easy to shout from across the dáil

thats like saying you should never take a promotion because you wont be able for it

aequinoctium

touché

gandalf

aequinoctium wrote:

mcmanus and labour have no idea what it is like to run a government. it has been far too long since they were in charge. they have no point of reference!

Well after 10 years its obvious that FF and the PD's haven't a clue how to deliver government either. I could list everything again but I already have on numerous threads.

Its pretty pathetic if this is the best argument you can give for return of the Government.

stepbar

ateam wrote:

That's Liz O'Donnell.

Yes, my bad.

aequinoctium

it's no argument to return a government...it's just that mcmanus shouldn't be patronising

gandalf

and Bertie should take better care of his finances.....:rolleyes:

FlutterinBantam

I have been listening to Liz Mcmanus for some time and based on my hearings,the woman should never be let next or near to a Health Service.

She never ever gives a straight answer to a straight question.

it's all waffle and contusion.

We all know that we would love to be treated well at A&E with no waiting times, no trollies,no bed capacity.

Are we prepared to bankrupt the country to achieve that????

Thats what would happen if we carry on without he neccessary reforms in the HSE at every level.

Liz Mcmanus is NOT the person in my opinion, most fitted to reform the HSE ....not by a long chalk.

InFront

Does anyone else think that McManus comes across as so patrionising in the way she speaks?

She talks convincingly with certainty and vision, and backs everything she says with statistics, is that what you call patronising? It made Harney look bad, if that's what you mean.

Harney just sat there angrily mumbling the same old tired phrases she always uses. She was a good Minister for Enterprise once upon a time, that will be her greatest legacy. Leaving that department turned out to be a major personal political failure on her behalf. It's very unlikely that - whatever way the dust settles - the PDs will be propping up the next Government. I don't believe Harney will be Minister for Health this time next June. For her personally, it must be sad to leave Health in such an undignified mess, but that's not the opposition's fault.

So no, McManus was not patronising. She was putting hard facts to the Minister, and truths that no doubt are hard for her to swallow.

Chakar

I watched the programme and to be honest she dodged every hard question that Miriam O'Callaghan had for her regarding how they were going to deliver on the hospital beds etc. She used emotive language talking how we deserve the best healthcare and how co-location was for profit etc. When she was talking about the current government failures in health, she totally overdid it with anedotes and the like.

Also her tone of voice was undoubtedly patronising along with her raised eyebrows.

InFront

I think the most useful point Mcmanus made about co-location was that everybody is entitled to a public bed. The reason why so many people have private health insurance is that they feel they need it. If you were to hypothetically remove that need by providing public hospital care to private medical standards, then you would abolish that need.

What do you get then?

A swing back to public health dependency. And not enough hospital beds, not enough resources, patients on trolleys, hospital bugs, lack of specialist care units! The policy contradicts itself. Better off with the Coalition plan imo.

Time Magazine

Chakar wrote:

..raised eyebrows.

Reason enough to maintain the current government?

TCM

Did anyone see Prime Time tonight? Mary Harney and Liz McManus were on talking about health. Does anyone else think that McManus comes across as so patrionising in the way she speaks?

I did not think her patronising/condescending in the least. I actually thought that she was calm, assertive and did not allow Mary Harney to bully and browbeat her into submission. Excellent performance!

Chakar

InFront wrote:

I think the most useful point Mcmanus made about co-location was that everybody is entitled to a public bed. The reason why so many people have private health insurance is that they feel they need it. If you were to hypothetically remove that need by providing public hospital care to private medical standards, then you would abolish that need.

What do you get then?

A swing back to public health dependency. And not enough hospital beds, not enough resources, patients on trolleys, hospital bugs, lack of specialist care units! The policy contradicts itself. Better off with the Coalition plan imo.

Mary Harney made a number of points about co-location. The principles of co-location as Harney said, is to build private hospitals on public land that is leased to the private healthcare companies involved. This would have the effect of improving public healthcare in the long run if implemented across the country. In the future it would lead to people not feeling that they have to actually take out private health insurance.

The plan is to deliver more hospital beds at a lower cost to the taxpayer and in the quickest possible time. The coalition's plan to deliver 2,300 hospital beds within 100 days is not possible nor in five years time. It hasn't been done before and it won't now or in the future.

DadaKopf

InFront wrote:

I think the most useful point Mcmanus made about co-location was that everybody is entitled to a public bed. The reason why so many people have private health insurance is that they feel they need it. If you were to hypothetically remove that need by providing public hospital care to private medical standards, then you would abolish that need.

What do you get then?

A swing back to public health dependency. And not enough hospital beds, not enough resources, patients on trolleys, hospital bugs, lack of specialist care units! The policy contradicts itself. Better off with the Coalition plan imo.

The reality is, InFront, that health is going to become an increasingly huge part of public expenditure as our society ages. How are we to pay for that? No party, FF, PD, FG, Labour, Greens (maybe SF) will tell us that if we want it, we'll have to pay for it.

I'm a Labour voter, but even I was disappointed with McManus tonight. I think health is simply too important to us all to politicise. If the solution to the problem is about being pragmatic, then we need a different approach that really does tackle the systemic problems we face.

For the record, I'm in favour of 100% universal health insurance, but the richer should pay more. I think the only way we can achieve this is through systemic revolution in the health sector, which can only be achieved through a major, unprecedented cross-party initiative, or through insulating health from politics for a limited period (long enough to take it out of party policy-planning cycles). The alternative is privatisation, which will destroy any sense of fairness in Irish society. We already have apalling national health statistics.

I think, ultimately, if people want a top-class health service, politicians are going to have to take leadership in admitting that it'll cost through the nose. At the same time, they have to tackle the apalling level of bad value for money (consultants, prices set by drugs companies, administrative burden).

I'm intruiged by co-location. It seems a sensible, pragmatic solution. But I see how it would be open to abuse, with hospitals favouring paying customers rather than 'freebies'. I don't think the a free market health system is compatible with a public health system. Though I would like more independent statistics about the idea from independent sources.

God,threads like these drain me.
Tit for tat party hacking...

I saw tonights exchange on prime time.Both of them had good points to make.
Harney ignoring the bad and mcmanus ignoring the good.
For the record McManus does have a smarmy smile.It's not a good presentational style as it comes across cocky.
Other than that she's well able to make her point.

DadaKopf

DadaKopf wrote:

The reality is, InFront, that health is going to become an increasingly huge part of public expenditure as our society ages. How are we to pay for that? No party, FF, PD, FG, Labour, Greens (maybe SF) will tell us that if we want it, we'll have to pay for it.

I'm a Labour voter, but even I was disappointed with McManus tonight. I think health is simply too important to us all to politicise. If the solution to the problem is about being pragmatic, then we need a different approach that really does tackle the systemic problems we face.

For the record, I'm in favour of 100% universal health insurance, but the richer should pay more. I think the only way we can achieve this is through systemic revolution in the health sector, which can only be achieved through a major, unprecedented cross-party initiative, or through insulating health from politics for a limited period (long enough to take it out of party policy-planning cycles). The alternative is privatisation, which will destroy any sense of fairness in Irish society. We already have apalling national health statistics.

I think, ultimately, if people want a top-class health service, politicians are going to have to take leadership in admitting that it'll cost through the nose. At the same time, they have to tackle the apalling level of bad value for money (consultants, prices set by drugs companies, administrative burden).

I'm intruiged by co-location. It seems a sensible, pragmatic solution. But I see how it would be open to abuse, with hospitals favouring paying customers rather than 'freebies'. I don't think the a free market health system is compatible with a public health system. Though I would like more independent statistics about the idea from independent sources.

Yes, it sounds good in principle. But, with this government's track record, I don't have any faith that it would work out this way. I really have no confidence that the moribund FF/PD coalition can do anything for the country.

I mean, how crazy can a country be when fairly substantiated corruption allegations against a prime minister results in a 2% increase in support? I need to get out of here.

Dirk Gently

tbh they canceled each other out. Mc Manus succeeded in highlighting the failures of harneys ideology and her ability to work with health workers to resolve disputes but harney succeeded in pointing out that the alternative government would have to make cuts else where to fund their programme. I thought Liz hid behind the "I'll answer as an outsider, out of the loop" qualifier a bit too much. On the nurses dispute she said she would "hope" to be able to set a date and that nurses would have to stay within benchmarking so not a whole lot more than what harney is currently attempting to do. Maybe harney should have hammered that fact home more.

Conclusion from the debate was that yes, health has suffered badly under the current government but the coalition doesn't really have a solution either.

As for Liz patronising, I would tend to say she was calm and clear, a good delivery for TV, however If she spoke to me like that off the camera one to one I think I would find her tone patronising and I would make a point of purposely winding her up and seeing how long it would take before she snapped. Miriam looked great again tonight didn't she.

Chakar

Overall I would say Mary Harney won that debate. She answered every question Miriam had clearly and concisely. She rebutted McManus's claims on the health service very effectively. I would be disappointed if Harney didn't get back into government with the PD's or hopefully a FF Minister can pick up where she left off and continue the good work following her example.

InFront

Chakar wrote:

Mary Harney made a number of points about co-location...

Everybody knows what colocation means, and what you've just done is rehashed the definition. It's the inability to solve the problems that go along with it that people have issues with.

About 50% of people have private health insurance, most people with health insurance have it because we feel it's necessary. Nobody enjoys paying VHI fees, people who do so are not rich. Assuming for a minute that co-location is capable of providing world class health care, why on earth should we pay for private healthcare then?
Everyone will just go back to the public system until it swings back to the critical point where it can;t cope, and it simply fails to ever take off. How will colocation fix that?

How will co-location prevent private hospitals from picking and making a reputation for profitable work, and from acquiring the most talented consultants? Tell us.

Macy

Chakar wrote:

Overall I would say Mary Harney won that debate. She answered every question Miriam had clearly and concisely.

I would've said the opposite, with her bumbling and mumbling. Harney on the defensive resorting to the old FF ministerial tatic of trying to shout down McManus. I can see where people might think she's got a certain smugness, although personally thought she just came across as being calm and reasoned compared to Harney's bluster.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Floppybits

I hate the way all parties are playing politics with the health service. What I would like to see happening is that all parties come together with a way to tackle the problem that is health. All parties have some good ideas and some bad ones but its going to take someone with a pair of balls (excuse the language) to actually stand up and say that no one party or coalition is going to solve the problems in health. Health needs all parties and by that I mean each political party, the HSE (a disaster really), the medical profession and by that I mean doctors, nurses, consultants and who ever else I missed to come together and sort it out.

Unfortuantely for us though this will never happen as each party is only interested in their own ends and not what it best for the people of this country and for the health service of this country.