But generally most people don’t think about the quality of the health system when casting their votes. Its usually only the concern of older members of the electorate. However, the cancer scandal brought it to a different level and showed how it affected individuals in a very unfair way.

And also illustrated how there is a willingness within government to let a system deteriorate in order to prove that another system is necessary.

Right. I think the government have already lost the argument about private health care. I think the majority of people are opposed to the proliferation of private hospitals on public sites. But probably most people feel it is going to go ahead anyway regardless. Plus, because the public health service is such a mess and hasn’t got people’s confidence, there’s probably an attitude that runs along the lines “well, I’m kind of opposed to private hospitals in principle, and they will eventually undermine the public system, but the public system is crap anyway so what the heck”.

The British have their NHS which served them very well in the past (and still does despite recent difficulties and increased expectations etc). Because they know the public system can work wel and can be fair, they have a greater reluctance to let it go. Our health service doesn’t hold the same regard in the public mind.

And despite the health issue moving to the centre of public debate now, it was never a big issue for the electorate when chosing the government.

It’s probably true as well that because the health system is so big and so complex, and the issues around private hospitals so poorly explained people find it hard to unravel the various strands in order to make a firm decision. Who among joe public for example knows how many private hospitals there are now, how many are planned for 2015, or what percentage of treatment they make up or the extent of the financial incentives being provided.

Yea, Conor, it was funny watching the grainy film footage of Murphy aiming the tip of the ornate musket which he’d been given by the British Viceroy of India, after winning a contract to build a railway in India, at the crotch of Harris. Two of Murphy’s henchmen with enormous moustaches and twitching black-rimmed eyes held the squirming former WP man fast and suddenly the film crackled and there was a plume of smoke at the end of the gun……Oh wait, that wasn’t the documentary, that must have been a dream I had last night.

The real documentary was very interesting, but I’ll try and write something up on it today.

Tomaltach, I think they might try and capitalize on it through Prime Time, but the audience figures are just not the same. I think the decision was made because of the popularity of the Late Late Show, as it really gets its message into the homes of Irish voters. It was seen that if Crown appeared on the Late Late Show without a government minister to counteract his arguments then the Government would completely loose the argument with the Irish public – and with it its attempt to bring in more privatization in Health care. They chose not to appear because they knew that they’d be on weak ground anyway. The political decision was made, whether by RTE itself, or due to pressure, because of the power of the Late Late Show to form opinions. Now we know that the LLS is very conservative, why else have Waters and Harris on before the election. The opinions they want to put out are very much in line with the governments, so there was perhaps no pressure was needed.

Why can RTÉ not make this right by - in the near future - asking Crown to appear opposite, say Brendan Drumm if you want to go the factual route, or a government minister, preferably Harney, if you want the political angle?

Perhaps if they were to do this it would be an admission that they got it badly wrong orginally.

Damn it, now I’ll have to watch Hidden History again… gah!