Sir, – Róisín Shortall has stood up for principled decision-making in Irish politics, ie the idea that scarce resources must be allocated consistently, according to internationally established, evidence-based criteria and through open, fair and transparent processes.
Of course, as successive tribunals and the origins of our economic crisis have shown, such principled behaviour is particularly scarce in Irish political life. The idea that ministers get to channel public resources to their own constituencies and to various “insiders” is still widely seen simply as “politics”.
But anyone with a real commitment to strengthening democratic and ethical governance knows that converting this aspiration into practice requires a critical mass of politicians (and department officials) who know what principled action is and who are willing to take a stand on it. Yet, it seems that “the consensus” across the Government parties is that Ms Shortall’s resignation was uncalled for, unrealistic or naive.
Seemingly, she should have been satisfied with achieving transparent and fair decision-making in 57 per cent of the resource allocation on this occasion (ie regarding 20 of 35 primary care centre locations).
The logic apparently being that if previous governments indulged in “stroke politics”, say, 99 per cent of the time, then surely reducing this to 43 per cent in this instance is progress? Is this yet another Irish solution to an Irish problem: transparent and fair standards are optional for politicians naive enough to pursue them? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I’d hate to get in the way of the canonisation of former minister of state Róisín Shortall, but the real heroes in politics are those who stay and fight the battles. It appears that Ms Shortall is being lauded for throwing her sweets out of the pram because she didn’t get her way. I applaud her convictions, but these would have been better used inside government, where her undoubted talents could have helped her country. Gritty determination is what is required in these difficult times. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The question should not be how James Reilly came to add Balbriggan and Swords onto the list of new primary care centres. It should be: how come Balbriggan in particular was not on the list devised by the HSE and Róisín Shortall?
Apparently the criteria used by Ms Shortall gave greater weighting to deprivation and that is how Balbriggan was not on the list. Hmm . . . Balbriggan has seen its population increase from 6,000 to 20,000 from 1996 and its unemployment numbers increase from 1,400 in 2007 to 6,000 in 2012. Maybe the Government should be looking at criteria for deprivation and not deprivation itself. The commuter belt town of Balbriggan is a microcosm of all that went wrong in planning.
A primary care centre might help the town not only in its health care provisions but by bringing people into the town to use the services of struggling businesses there. Other big towns such as Skerries, Rush and Lusk will also orientate perhaps to this new centre.
Bad planning and rampant development by builders has left this town without infrastructure. People have to commute to Coolock to sign on social welfare and to Gardiner Street to access community welfare services because these services have not been provided in the town.
Botched government ensured Balbriggan was in the international headlines in 2008, when a new school opened as an “emergency” measure to cater for pupils who had not been able to secure a place at a local school. All the schools that have opened here in recent years have been housed in emergency buildings, where building starts and finishes within three months.
Balbriggan is exhibiting all the signs of an area neglected by public investment and planning over the past 10 years. That the town was listed only as No 44 on the list for potential primary care sites, suggests to me that the politicians and the HSE bureaucracy got their definition of deprivation wrong.
So, the question is not why Balbriggan was included on the list, but why was it not on the list in the first place? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I was shocked to read of Róisín Shortall’s resignation.
I was shocked 12 years ago when Róisín Shortall picked up the phone to me here in the US in response to a letter I had written to her and many others about the death of Kim O’Donovan (Home News, September 20th) and the way this child had been treated by the “system” leading to her untimely death at the age of 15 years.
Ms Shortall was the only member of any party who picked up the phone that day having read what I had to say about the events that led up to the death of this girl. Other members of Dáil Éireann all had the same letter, yet Ms Shortall was the only member to see fit seek more information that would solve the problems of the children of Ireland left to fend for themselves on the streets of Dublin while under the care of the health board.
Not a lot seems to have changed in the past 12 years. Children were sent to the Magdalene laundries and the Government is still in denial. Had Kim lived through the 1960/1970s she would have been one of the children of Ireland sent by the courts to a Magdalene laundry. There is no apology for the Magdalene laundries and there is no apology for the children like Kim who have suffered at the hands of “the system”. Isn’t it about time someone copped on and said “Enough is enough”. Maybe we had to wait for Róisín Shortall to stand up and say it out loud and clear. Enough. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – It’s easier to shout from the terraces than to play on the pitch. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – A breath of fresh air blew through the dark caves of stroke politics, but was overcome by the fetid fumes of expediency.
The Irish print media is living in the mindset of 40 years ago with their descriptions of a reasonable junior ministerial complaint as a “strop” or “hissy fit”.
It’s business as usual in the political maelstrom, where perceptions are managed by PR gurus and the electorate has lost dedication, commitment and decency. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Would it be fair to say that Róisín Shortall fell on Dr James Reilly’s Swords? – Yours, etc,