Róisín Shortall Resigns As Junior Health Minister

Bannasidhe

usernamegoes wrote: »

How are they making money from below cost selling? It's not like a super market where they can use it as a loss leader?

If they were not making a profit they wouldn't remain in business very long now would they?

usernamegoes

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you have an issue with young people drinking excessive amounts of cheap alcohol?

No, provided they don't break the law. If there are medical costs then I do support the costs being passed on to those that incur them.

usernamegoes

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If they were not making a profit they wouldn't remain in business very long now would they?

Exactly. So perhaps it's not below cost.

Millicent

gaffer91 wrote: »

I'd say it would be better for government to provide people with an honest education on smoking/drinking etc and let them make up their own mind. This obviously won't work out in all cases- I doubt there is a person in Ireland who doesn't know how bad smoking is for them yet they still do it- but it is infinitely preferable to a government which tries to guide/force people into what they view as more agreeable behaviour. Maybe smoking is a bad example because of 2nd hand smoke and its health effects but you get my drift.

I get your drift but there are people at risk of damaging their own health through various controlled substances--that's exactly the reason that it is controlled. What about the study I linked to earlier that showed good results from minimum pricing on a whole host of negative effects of cheap alcohol? Are they inconsequential because people will have less of a choice in cheap drink?

Jimoslimos

usernamegoes wrote: »

I'd agree with others who say taht the state's function here is limited.

Really? So you would allow Diageo et al. all the freedom they wanted to exploit people at the expense of the taxpayer? Because that is who inevitably ends up picking up the pieces.

Bannasidhe

usernamegoes wrote: »

No, provided they don't break the law. If there are medical costs then I do support the costs being passed on to those that incur them.

Really? You don't think we have a problem with anti-social behavior on our city streets that is fueled by excessive consumption of alcohol??? Really???

BTW: Serving alcohol to someone who is drunk is breaking the law.

gaffer91

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This is one example nightclubs selling alcohol cheaply targeting young people found in less then 3 seconds on google.

Do you honestly think nightclubs are not currently running similar offers aimed at 3rd level student? The there is Holloween, Xmas, New Year 'special events.
I have witnessed pub's and nightclub's promo people interrupting lectures in an Irish university handing out flyers for their 'special event' drinks promos - at Xmas time this usually takes the guise of some eejit in an inflatable Santa suit.

But you want proof that clubs are selling below cost - perhaps you think they will publish a press statement to that effect?

Selling cheaply does not equal below cost. Given the expense of running a club, I'd assume the mark up on drinks must be huge so I would wager they are simply selling the drinks for a smaller profit rather than a loss. If that helps them attract more customers and make more money then fair play to them, they are running a business after all.

Bannasidhe

usernamegoes wrote: »

Exactly. So perhaps it's not below cost.

So you think it's perfectly acceptable to charge 2 euro for all alcoholic drinks?

usernamegoes

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Really? So you would allow Diageo et al. all the freedom they wanted to exploit people at the expense of the taxpayer? Because that is who inevitably ends up picking up the pieces.

You call it exploit, I don't. I didn't say at the expense of the tax payer in fact I said I support charging those that cause the issues, you want to punish everyone.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Serving alcohol to someone who is drunk is breaking the law.

True. I should have been clearer; I meant breaking anti-social or violence etc.

usernamegoes

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So you think it's perfectly acceptable to charge 2 euro for all alcoholic drinks?

I have been to events where that has happened. It happened every Tuesday in college.

They had a sign which read

All drinks 2 euros. No stupid questions.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Really? You don't think we have a problem with anti-social behavior on our city streets that is fueled by excessive consumption of alcohol??? Really???

I do. This is a policing issue. Do not punish everyone for the crimes of the very very small numbers.

Millicent

As I linked to before, do people really have an issue with the government saying that a half a litre of beer should cost €1.10? Do they really not see how this floor price might help to curb problem drinking?

And regardless of whether you agree with this policy or not, to get back on topic, are people so beholden to alcohol that they are glad a minister who was exposing the corrupt practices of a senior minister has resigned, simply because she had the temerity to try to tackle the drink problem in this country?

The alcohol issue is besides the point here. The issue here is that a good politician felt she had no choice but to step down over her party's failure to back her up where she was very clearly in the right. Is that not more important to people right now than an alcohol policy that may have come in in the future? That, to me, is really sad if that's the case and reflects very poorly on the entire electorate.

gaffer91

Millicent wrote: »

I get your drift but there are people at risk of damaging their own health through various controlled substances--that's exactly the reason that it is controlled. What about the study I linked to earlier that showed good results from minimum pricing on a whole host of negative effects of cheap alcohol? Are they inconsequential because people will have less of a choice in cheap drink?

Yes I saw that and in fairness it is difficult to dispute that some good has come of it in terms of reduced hospital admissions and crime. However this must be balanced with the economic effects (not listed) of reduced consumption in terms of VAT, PAYE etc. I would also be strongly reluctant to endorse any government policy with the express intent of influencing individual's social decisions ostensibly for their own good- one only need look at the farcical situations we have with cigarettes in terms of black market smuggling, and drug prohibition, to see the extremely harmful consequences such policies can have when taken to extremes.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Really? So you would allow Diageo et al. all the freedom they wanted to exploit people at the expense of the taxpayer? Because that is who inevitably ends up picking up the pieces.

Do you really want to do a cost benefit analysis of the alcohol industry? Noone is disputing the healthcare and policing costs associated with alcohol. What I would dispute is that these harms outweigh the jobs, VAT, customs and excises, rates and so on created by the alcohol industry.

Dangerous Man

Millicent wrote: »

As I linked to before, do people really have an issue with the government saying that a half a litre of beer should cost €1.10? Do they really not see how this floor price might help to curb problem drinking?

And regardless of whether you agree with this policy or not, to get back on topic, are people so beholden to alcohol that they are glad a minister who was exposing the corrupt practices of a senior minister has resigned, simply because she had the temerity to try to tackle the drink problem in this country?

The alcohol issue is besides the point here. The issue here is that a good politician felt she had no choice but to step down over her party's failure to back her up where she was very clearly in the right. Is that not more important to people right now than an alcohol policy that may have come in in the future? That, to me, is really sad if that's the case and reflects very poorly on the entire electorate.

Well put.

Millicent

gaffer91 wrote: »

Yes I saw that and in fairness it is difficult to dispute that some good has come of it in terms of reduced hospital admissions and crime. However this must be balanced with the economic effects (not listed) of reduced consumption in terms of VAT, PAYE etc. I would also be strongly reluctant to endorse any government policy with the express intent of influencing individual's social decisions ostensibly for their own good- one only need look at the farcical situations we have with cigarettes in terms of black market smuggling, and drug prohibition, to see the extremely harmful consequences such policies can have when taken to extremes.

What about the increase in employment? If that were enough to offset the difference in VAT, would you agree with the policy? It would have a positive influence on PAYE because of the increased employment and diversifying the marketplace. Small businesses would once again be able to compete against the likes of big-brand retailers who are slowly but surely pushing others out of business due to their below-cost pricing structure on alcohol.

Also, cigarettes and alcohol are not directly equivalent. One is far, far more addictive than the other. I'm usually against nanny state-ism but there appears to be quite a bit of merit and research to back up this particular policy.

humbert

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.

Minimum pricing cannot encourage people to drink more and I'm sure if enough surveys are done they'll find some situation in which there has been a statistically significant improvement but the question isn't, will this reduce alcohol abuse, it's is this the best way to tackle it.

Minimum pricing is a soft target. The people most affected tend not to vote, poorer people, students and the rest won't care enough to protest.
The vintners will love it and it's easy to impliment.

Better approaches would be to enforce current laws making pubs responsible for patrons leaving shitfaced. This would require the gardai to give a shit about drunk and disorderly behaviour so that's not going to happen and of course the vintners wouldn't like it.

Letting cafes get liquor licences would also help but that was shot down previously, again because the vintners wouldn't like it.

So they closed the off licences at 10pm, soft target.

So I see this as being seen to do something because actually doing something is too much effort.


If quitting is the sign of a good politician the bar is pretty low.

gaffer91

Millicent wrote: »

What about the increase in employment? If that were enough to offset the difference in VAT, would you agree with the policy? It would have a positive influence on PAYE because of the increased employment and diversifying the marketplace. Small businesses would once again be able to compete against the likes of big-brand retailers who are slowly but surely pushing others out of business due to their below-cost pricing structure on alcohol.

Also, cigarettes and alcohol are not directly equivalent. One is far, far more addictive than the other. I'm usually against nanny state-ism but there appears to be quite a bit of merit and research to back up this particular policy.

Interesting argument. Perhaps I will have to revise my opinion! As you may have guessed I'm very socially liberal, but I do like to think I am not so bound by ideology as to ignore a good policy when I see one. I also have a lot of time for SMEs, who I view as being far more important to the economic well being of the country than large corporations.

Obviously not everything is about money-one would also have to factor in the pleasure and enjoyment people get from getting drunk and whether it is fair to tax them for this perceived vice, and whether the state should be trying to influence the behaviour of its citizens, but I suppose the particular measure we are talking about is not particularly unreasonable in light of the evidence you've linked. However there is also something to be said for Humbert's point about such a policy disproportionately affecting the poor, students and so on.

So I'll have to sit on the fence here and say now I'm unsure what to think. Don't be too surprised if we end up arguing on the same side in future though ...

Millicent

humbert wrote: »

If quitting is the sign of a good politician the bar is pretty low.

That's completely missing the point of why she resigned. Her behaviour up to the resignation is the sign of a good politician.

grenache

yoyo wrote: »

Hopefully this supposed ban on alcohol sports advertising and minimum pricing will go with her. Stupid moves so good riddence :pac:

Nick

While i 100% that the minimum pricing is a stupid move, i have to disagree on other issue. This country has a serious issue with alcohol, far and above most other European countries. It must be tackled, rather than being swept under the carpet like a dirty secret.

I'm all for banning alcohol companies sponsorship of sports - alcohol is glorified enough as it is on tv, it doesn't need futher glorification. Our young don't need the drip feed.

gaffer91

gaffer91 wrote: »

How much below cost selling actually occurs in nightclubs/supermarkets?

Not that much to be honest. I work in a supermarket off licence. The only loss leaders I am aware of are bud and miller 20 packs. People literally will not buy these unless they are reduced to €15.

humbert

Millicent wrote: »

That's completely missing the point of why she resigned. Her behaviour up to the resignation is the sign of a good politician.

Crap policy on alcohol. Voted for James Reilly when she had the chance to stand up to him. Quit when she met resistance. That said she was probably better than many but I don't think she's a great loss.

petersburg2002

Millicent wrote: »

Why? You may not agree with her politics but are you happy that she has resigned while someone who was caught out abusing his position to the advantage of his constituents remains?

And Phil Hogan is just as bad. Boasting in letters how he had kept a traveller family from getting a house in his constituency, when he had done no such thing. Good on Kilkenny Council for ignoring his bullying. Fine Gael won't know what hit them come the next election.

efb

I find it very apt that we are discussing Ireland's drinking culture on "Arthur's Day"...

Slurryface

SHOCK NEWS
Woman throws hissy fit and storms out"

Did she slam the door behind her?:D

suicide_circus

Pitty to see a hardworking and principled person pushed out, even if her publican protectionism/nanny state stance was a disgrace. The cost of living is already far too high in this country, the government is there to serve the people, not to rip them off at every turn and tell them how to live.

working fool

Has she managed to hang on to her pension too ?

RobbingBandit

Pardon my ignorance here but what happens now, she has resigned her position and the party whip. Will she disappear to the backbenches or will she switch sides to the opposition, I am interested as I gave my vote to her in Dublin North West last year.

Pherekydes

I wonder do the posters opposing "Nanny Statism" support the state when its agents collect those who've drunk themselves into a stupor and bring them to A&E to look after them?

Would they prefer if the state kept its nose out and allowed these usually healthy young people to choke on their own vomit after a drinking binge?

The state has a responsibility towards its citizens. That is its Raison d'être.

Slurryface

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Pardon my ignorance here but what happens now, she has resigned her position and the party whip. Will she disappear to the backbenches or will she switch sides to the opposition, I am interested as I gave my vote to her in Dublin North West last year.

She will do what she feels is most populist of course.

dvpower

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Pardon my ignorance here but what happens now, she has resigned her position and the party whip. Will she disappear to the backbenches or will she switch sides to the opposition, I am interested as I gave my vote to her in Dublin North West last year.

She's resigned the whip, so I expect her to become a focal point for Labour party dissent from the back benches.
She'll oppose the forthcoming budget and be a general thorn in the side of Labour TDs who are trying to implement the Programme for Government (and depleting their political capital doing so).

She could have made some impact by pushing through at least some of policies she championed. As a left wing Minister she could have been successful in protecting her broad constituency from some of the worst of the cuts in the coming years.
Instead, inexplicably, she decided that this primary care row (which I expect won't be remembered as a major issue in a couple of years) was worth sacrificing any impact she might have made as a minister for.

_feedback_

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Can't understand why she voted for Reilly in the 'no confidence' thing a little back and then does this. Anyone able to shed some light on this? Doesn't make any sense.

humbert wrote: »

Crap policy on alcohol. Voted for James Reilly when she had the chance to stand up to him. Quit when she met resistance. That said she was probably better than many but I don't think she's a great loss.

Maybe she voted confidence because she thought there were a massive amount of things that need to be done, and that she wanted to be there to do them. Maybe she had ideas that she wanted to talk through. Maybe she thought it would be better for everyone to just get the fook on with it.

She certainly knew she would be finished if she voted no confidence and that it would be left up to Father Stack. By voting no confidence in the guy she would actually be just handing it over to that same person she has no confidence in....

Obviously in the past couple of days she has been led to believe that she has no hope of anything happening. She said that there was no support for change.

So, what was she supposed to do? Sit there and "fight"? What's the point? She would just be looked upon like any other in there - full of empty promises.

Reilly was speaking in his constituency in Balbriggan last night after the resignation and said something like "there has been a lot of problems aired in the public domain in the past few days, but I'm happy that we will have a primary care centre in Balbriggan". That says it all, innit.

palmcut

palmcut wrote: »

Are any of the other PC centres political choices?

Apologies for the badly worded question.
15 additional areas were added to the list of primary care centres. The junior Minister resigned over the lack of apparent criteria for picking these 15 centres.
There is some discussion over the validity of the two centres in the constituency of the senior Minister.
What about the validity of the other 13 centres?
Are they also chosen for political reasons?

efb

Stroke politics alive and well in Ireland. Ms Shorthall's biggest problem with many of the posters here seems to be 'nanny statism' largely because it meant increasing their cheap booze, they want the state to protect them on their terms.

With Minister Hogan and Reilly's actions over the last few days it proves nothing has changed in Irish politics- and as long as Irish people think they're getting some of the swill they don't seem to mind what's been thrown into the trough- and by whom.

Ghost Buster

hardCopy wrote: »

Fair play to her for sticking to her guns.

I can't really understand the loyalty to Reilly, he was caught rapid and had zero explanation for it.

The loyalty to Reilly thing...Hmmmm
I know about as much about politics as my 6 year old so can someone confirm this:
Our politicians are, by the rules of Irish politics, required to lie. Is this correct.?

What i mean is, if a matter is being voted on then your party dictates to you how to vote (toeing the party line) making the vote redundant iat the out set.
If there are 100 FG V 50 opposition for example then you know the outcome without taking the vote in the first place.
So if Shortall had any issues or gripes about Reilly, labour and its operations she is not allowed to voice them whilst a member of government.
Its crazy.

dvpower

Ghost Buster wrote: »

So if Shortall had any issues or gripes about Reilly, labour and its operations she is not allowed to voice them whilst a member of government.
Its crazy.

She did have issues.
She was allowed to voice them.
She did voice them.
She herself decided to resign her office and the whip. Nobody forced her out.

suicide_circus

Pherekydes wrote: »

I wonder do the posters opposing "Nanny Statism" support the state when its agents collect those who've drunk themselves into a stupor and bring them to A&E to look after them?

Would they prefer if the state kept its nose out and allowed these usually healthy young people to choke on their own vomit after a drinking binge?

The state has a responsibility towards its citizens. That is its Raison d'être.

I'd prefer if the state didn't penalize the entire population for the actions if a few and instead came down more harshly on those who act the bollix.

dvpower

palmcut wrote: »

What about the validity of the other 13 centres?
Are they also chosen for political reasons?

Reilly has had enough opportunity to explain the rationale for the new locations, but hasn't, so there's very little doubt but that they were at least partially political.

There was some contraversy (posted on the Politics thread) about the choice of centres in Roscommon.

Ghost Buster

dvpower wrote: »

She did have issues.
She was allowed to voice them.
She did voice them.
She herself decided to resign her office and the whip. Nobody forced her out.

Time will tell.
She had to vote confidence in Reilly did she not even though 'The dog in the street!" knew she had none.

Benny_Cake

suicide_circus wrote: »

Pherekydes wrote: »

I wonder do the posters opposing "Nanny Statism" support the state when its agents collect those who've drunk themselves into a stupor and bring them to A&E to look after them?

Would they prefer if the state kept its nose out and allowed these usually healthy young people to choke on their own vomit after a drinking binge?

The state has a responsibility towards its citizens. That is its Raison d'être.

I'd prefer if the state didn't penalize the entire population for the actions if a few and instead came down more harshly on those who act the bollix.

I'd prefer if the large supermarket chains stopped the below-cost selling of alcohol and maybe try something radical such as cutting the cost of food to entice people through their doors. Since they aren't doing that, a minimum price per unit of alcohol seemed like a reasonable idea.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So you think it's perfectly acceptable to charge 2 euro for all alcoholic drinks?

I wish the nightclubs I go to had this policy, rather than paying about 13 euro for a double measure of spirits and mixer or 5 euro for a pint or worse again 5 euro for a bottle of beer.

I go out quite a lot and its been a long long time since I saw any pub or club selling at really low cost. Best deal I seen is 5 euro for a spirit and mixer.

However I often get a slab of cans for 1 euro each and its so common on certain brands I doubt they are below cost selling, actually Im positive they are making something at 1 euro a can as they sometimes sell it for less on special promotion.

dvpower

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Time will tell.
She had to vote confidence in Reilly did she not even though 'The dog in the street!" knew she had none.

There was no gun to the back of her head.
At least give her the credit that she is responsible for her own actions.

fishy fishy

Im have no interest in our so called govt and their lies. I thought labour would NOT roll over so easily - there is no labour party in Ireland as far as I am concerned.

its still seems to be the same old story up there tho.

Glad labour is falling apart - if they let go of their principles they fall apart - here's the proof.

idiots.

dvpower

Its a shame that a thread about the resignation of a government minister, in the middle of the worst economic crisis possibly in the history of the state, can be so preoccupied with something as unimportant as the price of a pint.

the groutch

dvpower wrote: »

Its a shame that a thread about the resignation of a government minister, in the middle of the worst economic crisis possibly in the history of the state, can be so preoccupied with something as unimportant as the price of a pint.

it's called alcoholism

my friend

Short Haul wasn't fit for the Long Haul

She's a quitter and anyone thats falling for the 'smokescreen of principle' has been truly hoodwinked

yosser hughes

Roisin Shortall should have asked her Labour party colleague Brendan Howlin why changes weren't happening within the health service. I really have to laugh at people commenting on this as if it's a black and white story. James Reilly ain't the bad guy here folks.

Conmaicne Mara

Unsurprising.

It was always my biggest concern when FG went in with Lab that Lab wouldn't be able to hack a full term. Is this the start of things to come?

Dyr

in Labour you have the sticky faction who wouldn't have a principle between them and careerists like burton. Shortall is probably the least worst of that mob, she was never going to last in govt with them.

suicide_circus

the groutch wrote: »

it's called alcoholism

Its called liberty. Fixing the price of any commodity is fundamentally wrong.

suicide_circus

Hogan and O'Reilly have shown their true colours in the last week. They are no different to the generations of gombeen men before them who have wrecked this country.

Bannasidhe

suicide_circus wrote: »

Its called liberty. Fixing the price of any commodity is fundamentally wrong.

What about gas and electricity? Do you not think those should be regulated or should suppliers be allowed to charge what they like?

Is a mortgage a commodity? Do you think lenders should be allowed to increase variable interest rates at will?

What about people's liberty to be able to walk our city streets at night without being subject to drunks roaring and fighting?

What about people's liberty to be able to avail of emergency treatment without being subjected to drunks roaring and screaming in our A & E's who are also putting a huge strain on our limited health resources?