Do you admire Roisin Shortall for resigning?

D1stant

Theory 1:

Unrealistic Leftie didnt know how to play politics. Couldn't hack the job, engineered an exit built by O' Reilly

Theory 2:

Honest politician (oxymoron?) who couldn't hack the bull****

But still voted confidence in O Reilly. Tut tut

Theory 3:

Irrespective of the reasons, its unforgivable to walk away from the shambles of the health service. Shame on her


p.s. I'm going with 2

eth0

She fell short of expectations

dhmusic

where's the option for I just don't care anymore

woodoo

Yes because it was principled and it is such a rarity in Irish politics to resign for any matter.

Mickey H

We all make career decisions, so, no.

Wee Willy Harris

Who? and just how short is she.. never heard of her at all

15 minute fail, tbh. she needs to get rag moppin'

clappyhappy

Option 3,

say_who_now?

And you needed a new thread for this because...??

pawrick

She was right to resign but I don't respect her for it

D1stant

say_who_now? wrote: »

And you needed a new thread for this because...??

Because I was interested in the zeitgeist

If you dont care, dont post. Bye

strobe

I'd imagine she was told by the party that she had to resign as they no longer considered her loyal and did so. So I don't really see what there is that could be admired in her acquiescence... just my reading of the situation.

sonic85

what was the point - seriously? she wants change and feels the system is corrupt but instead of hanging on and fighting she throws the toys out of the pram and resigns?

what good will she do now?

like every other politician shes full of sh!t

Rigol

Don't know that much about it.
I don't know whether to believe what its supposed to be on the surface/in the media or not.

BUT...if it is an act in defiance of the cute hooor shleeven culture, which seems to be hanging in there, then buy that girl a pint of black and some planning permission.

From what little I know it seems to be yer man the doctor was ...as ever.. lookin after his own small town band of supporters to the detriment of the concept of an actual effective govt.

Surely if we can bring in rules and regs for everything from hard hats to fat contents of foods then we can bring in some kind of law that says you don't get to send all the goodies to your neighbours/yourself.

gobnaitolunacy

In the same way I would admire a car for breaking down. A cop out.

RDM_83 again

She did the right thing but too late so option 2

baldbear

She shouldn't of voted confidence in Reilly in the first place.

say_who_now?

D1stant wrote: »

say_who_now? wrote: »

And you needed a new thread for this because...??

Because I was interested in the zeitgeist

If you dont care, dont post. Bye

Jesus, you could've just said "others opinions" instead of having me google, but how and ever, plenty of opinions in the other thread already, that's the only reason I was asking why this necessitated another thread while the other one was still going is all. I wasn't trying to be smart.

Anyway, my own take on it is the very same as any politician that "resigns on principle" but gets to keep their seat- it was only a token gesture of posturing on the moral high ground. She's like a rat deserting a sinking ship is all and as another poster suggested- throwing her toys out of the pram and taking the ball home when she doesn't want to play any more! :rolleyes:

Biggins

Don't agree with some/a lot of her ideas but at least she stood up and wasn't going to be further humiliated by thugs in government.

syklops

Biggins wrote: »

Don't agree with some/a lot of her ideas but at least she stood up and wasn't going to be further humiliated by thugs in government.

Biggins, you and I occasionally see eye to eye but tonight is not one of them.

Standing up and not allowing yourself to be humiliated anymore, does not in my opinion mean you stand up and exit stage right. Standing up to thugs in government would mean staying where you are, remaining the thorn in the side, allowing them to get annoyed, allowing them to get frustrated, allowing them to make mistakes, allowing them to give you a bargaining piece.

What has her standing up to government done? She retreats to the back benches to do what? I dont know. Government is about the only place where you can resign your title but hang on to your salary until something else comes along.

Biggins

syklops wrote: »

Biggins, you and I occasionally see eye to eye but tonight is not one of them.

Standing up and not allowing yourself to be humiliated anymore, does not in my opinion mean you stand up and exit stage right. Standing up to thugs in government would mean staying where you are, remaining the thorn in the side, allowing them to get annoyed, allowing them to get frustrated, allowing them to make mistakes, allowing them to give you a bargaining piece.

What has her standing up to government done? She retreats to the back benches to do what? I dont know. Government is about the only place where you can resign your title but hang on to your salary until something else comes along.

I CANNOT say why she took the particular path she did but I'm assuming (open to be wrong) she has chosen her particular way to protest (?) or make a stand (?) against what she considers unfairness by her party members.

I'm also estimating that she had decided to still stay within her party to still try bring change from working within its walls, not just shouting from outside it.
Maybe when she came to point where she noticed even still within, she is not having any further effect as she would wish, she decided to leave as a next step - that was up to her - in the meanwhile I'm again assuming that she is very politically astute and knows exactly what she is doing, why she is now doing it and how to do it knowing the structure and rules within her once organisation.

Lord knows what she intends to do on the back benches - but I suspect her work target/ambitions now lies within the org she once was in rather than just in the Dail, for the moment.

I say all the above with the repetition that I do not agree often with her intended policies or ideas.

Yes. I know she has now resigned for the Labour party but I suspect that she is still trying while officially elected, to be trying to effect change within it.

You say:

Government is about the only place where you can resign your title but hang on to your salary until something else comes along.

You won't find me disagreeing with that.
Maybe she feels that she was elected to her seat because of who she is - and what her ideas are - not just because of what org she is in?
I don't know myself - but in also staying on as an elected TD even in an independent capacity (and yes, still collect a huge wage/perks?), she is now freer from a Labour whip and their influence, their possible punitive effect, to vote against select policy of the once party she was in.
Free more in fact to be able to be more selective about what ideology she really hold and not just be forced to tow the line.

There is also the question - what if she resigned totally from the Dail?
Does anyone know what majority she had at the last election?
I could probably find it eventually but in the meanwhile, my further point is that if it was big enough, her chances of getting re-elected again might be the same.
Thus by resigning and then getting back in again, an subsequent by-election MIGHT be a massive costly un-needed exercise.
(Just raising that aspect too.)

ejmaztec

She would have been better off staying put and stirring the sh1t from within, because there's not much she can do outside the septic tank.

Biggins

I can honestly say, I have been to some extent where she has been.
I tried to effect change till I got to a certain level and discovered that (a) I was basically being given a deaf ear and played along just to keep numbers and (b) I discovered that the org I was in was just bad and corrupt.

There comes a point that for all the wanting to stay in a party that you thought was a good thing, on being absolute realistic in the cold light of day when faced with those that just when it comes to the crunch (as it did with her), you either have to move on in a different direction/tactic or continue to bang your head against a brick wall knowing that in doing so, absolute no effect would come of it.

666irishguy

I think she is typical of the average politician in Ireland. Former teacher, seems like a nice enough person able to orate or get across her ideas, quits teaching, gets noticed in the party, someone shoves off, gets put forward as a candidate, gets elected to a local office then runs as a TD, gets in time after time more than likely because the voters in her constituency traditionally voted for that party, gets a position up front, realises that its a different game at the top of the pyramid, something comes up that will threaten her future election prospects, puts her seat before her country, resigns, snipes as independent for remainder of term. Can't say I admire her in anyway. The country is barely sputtering along economically and she decides that she'll quit knowing it will add just one more tiny bit of uncertainty or unrest into the mix.

Pherekydes

She probably quit because she realised she wasn't going to get anything done in her department without it being second-guessed, or even quashed or put on the back-burner by the senior minister.

She was probably conflicted voting confidence for him. In the end, she was bullied out by Reilly and given no support by her LP colleagues, which is the part I'm most disappointed about. The Labour Party should quit government and support a minority FG government. This is exactly what they're doing as it is, but resigning their ministerial portfolios would give them some honour to take into the next election.

Slurryface

Selfish woman throws hissy fit and storms out, what is there to admire?

lazeedaisy

She sould not have voted confidence in the man in the first place,

she is hated in the ranks she works in - because she treats them all the bold school kids and thinks we are all stupid

THAT said - she defined the criteria for the list, I think Reilly is old school boys club and will never go, he proved that by changing the criteria for just 2 of the centres - you either pick one criteria and stick to it or change the whole thing and start again.

same crap - its still everyone out for themselves - so why should we be surprised

She has not proved aything because she resigned YET she voted confidence in the man - same old same old

she obviously thought she was tring to prove a point but she has been replaced and ........ roisin who????

Biggins

lazeedaisy wrote: »

She sould not have voted confidence in the man in the first place,

There in lies the heart of the problem.
She had no confidence in the man deep down. Sadly such is standard party rules/guidelines - dare I say it, unspoken openly decorum about supporting one's own at least in public to try espousing party unity, that if she had not voted with the party, the whip is usually hovering around with threats of short and long term effects to her career within the party.

Now take into account the period of time from her voicing her thoughts on her fellow party member to the time of her official leaving she (I'm estimating) learned in that period that she further was on a hiding to nothing by remaining within the org. This period of time is important and the arrival of the conclusion cannot be underestimated.
In effect in the period as outlined, she learned she was effectively closed out, shunned, and there was no further support for her from people she once thought were friends but now stabbing her in the back, were blanking her. The party had got her vote - and were complete done with her. She had hit a inner party political wall.

What would the rest of us do at that point in all honestly.
Would the rest of us stay, be totally thus ignored, treated like an infectious parasite and be effectively stabbed in the back by party friends which were once so called friends?
Honestly - if it was absolute clear that her contribution to the party further was totally going to be ignored and she was out in the cold, what else could she do?

If they had still offered her some show of support internally and even a bit to the cameras outside at important points, the Labour party might have retained their once member - but they couldn't be arsed doing that.
She was instead, thrown by the wayside in attitude and public confidence by them.
Would any of us have stayed, to be humiliated further like that? Really... honestly?

Again, I don't agree with a lot of her notions and ideology, I certainly don't agree the path she chose to take with the once party she was in.
I accept she is a shrewd political person and is suspectly doing to some extent what she is doing for maybe also self-gain - but knowing how it feels to be treated like dirt and ostracised and effectively dis-owned, I cannot fully fault her for eventually deciding to take a final step away from a party which for a long time she she she knew and supported.
Such a step into the cold isolation of just becoming another independent is never easy. Trust me.

Slurryface wrote: »

Selfish woman throws hissy fit and storms out, what is there to admire?

Tell me - if a man did the same, would you use that same derogatory wording?
She didn't throw any "Hissy fits" and didn't do any "storming out" - where in Dublin and when in date and time did did she do this hissing and storming exactly?
If your going to give out about a woman, be accurate at least, not just bitchy with undertones of sexism!

bazza1

She should have stayed and fought her corner. If she felt unsupported, she should have been a thorn in her partys side, by asking the awkward questions!

She can do little now, on the back benches, except count her €33K "loss of earnings" payoff! Donate it to the HSE instead Roisin!

Biggins

bazza1 wrote: »

She should have stayed and fought her corner. If she felt unsupported, she should have been a thorn in her partys side, by asking the awkward questions!

She can do little now, on the back benches, except count her €33K "loss of earnings" payoff! Donate it to the HSE instead Roisin!

I'm playing devils advocate here to some extent - let me make that clear.

I'll tackle the latter point first.

* At least on the back benches now, she can publicly confront the once Labour party members where internally she could quiet effectively by the party mechanism, be quietly off camera ignored.

* At least on the back benches now she can vote without further fear of political vindictiveness from once friends, now just cold back-stabbing TD's

* At least on the back benches now, she is more freee to represent her local area constituents without having to cow-town to higher party ideology and have her localised issues shoved to once side and not given the chance to raise them in or outside the Dail where its might have conflicted with party policy.
Example: the maybe closing of local services/hospitals etc in her area.

The former point: She COULD have stayed and fought her corner - but I suspect she discovered in a very important period that she was VERY much now out in the cold.
Would any of us here try continuously try chatting to a person that is completely stone deaf, has turned their complete back - and whats more effectively won't even look at her?
Staying in - at that point of blindness and deafness, would there be any point in staying, seriously?

I absolutely do NOT like the woman for a number of reasons.
I can understand her decision to go to some extent because I have to some extent been exactly where she has been,

Fuinseog

the country is in trouble and its about working together to get us back on track not petty squabbling.
shortall, with her shenanigans threatened to dig a deeper hole for us. save the ego for when we are stable again.

hyperborean

Useless politician, why should she get respect. She couldnt deal with a Reilly so she did the cowardly thing and ran.

goldenhoarde

I think she was on balance just about right but each day new facts come out that distort the story. Standing up to stroke politics needs to become the norm here.

Sergeant

No. She was a bit of an ideologue in a government which has to deal with an unprecedented hole in our public finances. Cuts have to be made, and difficult and unpopular decisions have to be made in all areas. This includes the utter fiasco that is the health service.

Yet when changes are made, you get opportunistic leeches and me-feiners like Luke Flanagan standing down outside some badly managed and inefficient hospital in the Midlands playing the usual populist nonsense.

If you don't have money then you cannot have nice things.

Biggins

goldenhoarde wrote: »

I think she was on balance just about right but each day new facts come out that distort the story. Standing up to stroke politics needs to become the norm here.

I'm sure there is her version - there is their version - and somewhere in between there is the truth.

R0ot

She was smart enough to exit and stay in favour with the party and the public. Coward however because she didn't come out and call all the mistakes as they were, instead she resigns to improve her re-election prospects.

mike65

Resignation is all too often the easy option when being "principled", she should have played the whole thing smarter - when a junior takes on a senior Minister there is only going to be one winner in the short term (O'Reilly is on thin ice though).