Some last minute predictions

// February 26th, 2011 // No Comments » // GE11

Image via Wikipedia

It is just possible that FG might get 3 seats in Cork South West and Limerick County (if Collins FF is under 19% this is very doable), and we could see 3 FGers in Laois Offaly.

My prediction from two nights before polling still stands of, for what it is worth,

FG38%/FF20%/Lab17%/SF10%/Grn1.8%/ULA3.2%/Ind10%

I suspect transfers from FG to Labour will be down somewhat on the usual level, I’ve met loads of Fine Gael voters who are seriously ticked off over the Labour tactics in the last 2 weeks. Fine Gael the party of the Just Society, which actually made the case to middle Ireland for the introduction of divorce on two occasions, that changed the public mindset about divorce and which frankly ensured that Irelanfd in the 80s with twice the unemployment rate of the UK had nothing like the social problems or unrest like Toxteth or Brixton is being painted as an entirely neo-Thatcherite party by. Sure there are right wingers in FG just there are pseudo or near unreconstructed communists in Labour but to characterise FG as being solely that sort of party is inaccurate and frankly gets up the backs of older FGers. My parents who would normally vote Labour immediately after FG almost by instinct were very…well, hurt is the only word I can think of… by the behaviour of Labour and its leadership over the last while and had my dad’s vote not already been in the post he would most probably have changed it. As it was I left my mother mulling over voting for an left leaning independent instead of the Labour candidate. Will this cost Labour some gains?

Did FF think their political reform proposals through at all?

// February 7th, 2011 // 2 Comments » // GE11

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Having a substitute in the Dail as suggested in the political reform segment of the FF manifesto would hardly free up a minister’s time at all, it’s not like voting in the Dail is causing them that many headaches for them as it is. They are already allocated up to half a dozen civil servants to handle their constituency work at the taxpayers expense. This is done without letting on to the constituent who is lead to believe it’s the minister who is writing and signing all those letters until that letter turns out to be for a murder or child molester in which case we’re then told it was their staff wrote it.

And what happens when the minister seeks to run for re-election or is dropped from the cabinet? Do they kick out the sub? and what do they campaign on? – People of Ballysomewhere “Vote for me, my sub did all the local work.” Or is it intended that you’d be a minister in a government and if you fall out of favour with the party leader that your political career over? Talk about giving a means to quell dissent against the leader.

Think about that for a moment, anyone who is a minister would serve entirely at the pleasure of the Taoiseach, once appointed they would be open to being dismissed and have no seat to return to, not means to challenge the leader of the day. There is a strong argument to made for this power if we were to elected the Taoiseach directly as the person in that office would have  strong direct mandate from the people. Yet to continue to have the Dail elect the Taoiseach who then appoints ministers, none of whom will be able to challenge him for fear of losing their jobs, would mean that for example Michael Martin would not have been able to challenge Brian Cowen nor Albert Reynolds challenge Charles Haughey. Once gone as minister they would be gone from parliament and without an income would be gone from public life.

These set of proposals is even more half baked than I thought they might be, and FF are still persisting, and being allowed to do so by the press, with inventing terms that make no sense like single seat PR *(it’s called the Alternative Vote and as LibDems in the UK will tell you it’s not really all that proportionate)  and unilateral renegotiation.

Voting – what’s with all the secrecy?

// November 21st, 2010 // No Comments » // 2010

When tens of thousands of citizens from the elderly to public sector workers march in protest against government policies that they had voted for, alongside colleagues who did not, is it time to reconsider the primacy of the secret ballot? We live in a society where all are made feel the consequences of choices made at election time but not all voters’ bear equal responsibility for those choices. When people can vote without any expectation of commiserate responsibility for their actions, why would we expect more from our politicians who are drawn from such an electorate?

Twice in a single generation, Irish governments have pursued policies, endorsed by the electorate, that have driven the country onto the economic rocks. While the policies of 1977 and those of 1997 through to 2007 might differ in substance the degree of denial amongst voters is markedly the same. Unlike other forms of public choice, in politics when a majority or large minority choose brand X we are all compelled to live with the consequences.

The government Ireland elected in 19977 proceeded to spend public money in manner likely to cause acute embarrassment to the most intoxicated of seafarers, leaving the bill to the entire adult population 1980s for those decisions. Those who judged it a good idea to reduce or abolish council rates and car tax with no visible means of replacing the lost revenue while increasing the numbers in state employment compelled others to bear the cost. Yet Ireland’s direction in the aftermath might have been changed if those who had supported those policies had to contribute even that bit more towards the clean-up bill.

Our practice, in Ireland, of the secret ballot owes much to events in the mid 1800s; the British Ballot Act of 1872, the advocacy role of the Chartists and events across the Empire such as the Eureka Stockade. Yet even now the secret ballot is not the sole means of making decisions in public life. The cabinet votes may be hidden from the public but not from one another, in the Oireachtas members vote on the public record but parliamentary parties vote in private and only occasionally by secret ballot.

As universal suffrage was extended throughout the world there was considerable legitimate concern that votes would be bought or that people coerced or intimidated into voting a particular way. The concerns that individuals might be coerced are considerably less even though the buying of the votes of sectional interests is now deemed to be perfectly reasonable. Entire groups are bought off with political promises at a cost to the wider population.

If we’re going to preserve the secret ballot as a core element of the political process then we need to ensure that it is not a single event to be forgotten once the count is completed but rather part of a process of longer term engagement and participation. Efforts such as theyworkforyou.co.uk serve as one example of what is possible in making available information about those who represent us and what they actually do. But does anyone have an incentive to access such information. Many people are familiar with the concept of ‘studying form’ when it comes to betting on horse racing but what studying of form do the public do when it comes to politics.

In Alastair Reynolds’ novel “Prefect” a system is devised whereby people’s voting strength is increased based on a collective review of the quality of the outcome of their votes. If one votes for a proposal that is viewed over time as a beneficial then they are credited with more influence at subsequent votes, if the impact was negative their influence is reduced. This provides for feedback into people’s decision making.

Encouragement to vote should come in the form of restructuring a portion of the current tax credits into a Voter’s Tax Credit. Don’t vote and if they can’t provide a very good reason why not they get hit in the pocket. We should also provide a “None of the Above” option on ballots to facilitate genuine abstentions. This should increase voter turnout substantially.

Then in parallel to the existing secret ballot, we allow members of the public to choose to publicly invest the value of their VTC in the specifics of manifesto promises of parties or individual candidates. At the next election, the citizenry are again asked to rate negatively or positively the manifesto promises whether they were implemented or not. The value of your VTC increases and decreases based on the collective opinion of the quality of your decisions.

If the decisions turn out to be poor you pay more tax if they viewed as being to the broader benefit you pay less. The associated impact could fade over the course of each successive election so that citizens are not scarred forever by their youthful choices. When faced so starkly with the prospect of their cold hard cash being on the line might the quality of public decision making improve? That’s my 2c worth. What will you wager?

ENDS

ED’s Note

This is a step by step time timeline of how such a system might possibly work.

Create a new Voters/Citizens Tax Credit reducing the PAYE tax credit by the same amount, so this is revenue neutral

1) Once a general election campaign has started publish all the various manifestos on-line.

2) The public rate the top 20 promises per party over the course of the campaign

3) 2/3 days before polling this top 20 list is published

4) On polling day a voter may cast up to 27 votes on-line for the 27 manifesto promises they most support across party lines

5) At the time of the next general election, the public again cast their votes on which of those 20 policies from each party they believe in retrospect were the best and worst.

6) The policies as rated by the voters as above average result in increases to your VTC with matching decreases for more poorly rated decisions

7) Adjustments are made in your Voters/Citizens Tax Credit accordingly

Repeat the process for the new political promises

I Wrote this for the Sunday Times a few years back – not sure if I have posted it here in this form already.

How we might recognise those IMF/ECB types

// November 17th, 2010 // No Comments » // 2010

How we will be able to discern the IMF/ECB types from the local business types.

Huge hattip to the Lotus Musuem and of course the Boston Globe artist responsible.

Good banks, bad banks, and costly wind-ups.

// September 7th, 2010 // 1 Comment » // letters to Madam

SMS cell broadcast alert system for emergencies

// July 8th, 2010 // 5 Comments » // cork

The Oireachtas Communications, Energy and Natural Resources committee has complied a report into using the cell broadcast facility in emergency situations. It’s a useful idea but then I would say that as the idea that we should look into using cell broadcast for emergencies was mine. I can’t help feeling a bit like that character playing by Arrabella Weir who suggests solutions to problems who no one listens to but they then go on to repeat her idea as if it was their own.

And this experience plays into one of the problems we have with the development of a knowledge economy, one of the most basic components for a knowledge economy to work is that there be appropriate attribution and credit given to all concerned and that intellectual property be protected. If the culture instead is one where those who contribute to ideas or insight are not worth noting as being party to that process then why would those people choose to site here at all?

An Irish liberal party – what about a progressive caucus instead

// February 22nd, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

In performing a little exercise set for me by Jason O Mahony I was given to thinking about the calls that come every once in a while from some quarters that we should have new Liberal party or similar in the absence of the PDs. I would oppose such an idea for a number of reasons that I won’t bore you with right now but I do think there might be an opening not for a new political party as such but rather for the emergence of the American style caucus model in Irish politics.

The point would be to have a broad viewpoint, in this case, one that is liberal/libertarian and then at election time to endorse individual candidates who were amenable to those beliefs. The caucus would literally talk, on-line for the most part, about policies and political principles that it should advocate and seek support for.

I’m not suggesting that we’d get too many takers at the outset from the existing public reps, in particular TDs, but it might be better anyway to start by appealing to members of all parties and none.

So I might, in the next short while, try and drop some worms in the water and see if anyone bites.

Let’s get Joss Whedon to write Ireland’s Eurovision entry

// February 5th, 2010 // No Comments » // Seanad, Uncategorized

I was thinking about stuff yesterday and the idea occurred to me that someone who would be perfect to organise the writing of a decent tune for Ireland’s Eurovision would be Joss Whedon. Who else from outside the usual suspects would get the sheer scale of Eurovision? I mean the UK is thinking of sending Jedward (I hope we aren’t)

While I’ve love a number like this

but this with some drama thrown in might be just the thing

or something with a hint of the power ballad about it

Update : Hat-tip to Ewan for suggesting we go with Neil Patrick Harris.

A short history of the economy in 80s Ireland

// February 5th, 2010 // 3 Comments » // Uncategorized

I normally don’t post links to p.ie but this obviously took too much effort and is too excellent not to reach as many people as possible. Massive kudos to Edo. Full extract below but better to comment on p.ie

Edo “Oh why am I bothering to engage with this thread………..the itch has to be scratched I guess.

The 83 – 87 Fitzgerald governments economic performance has to be taken in a variety of contexts for one to come to some kind of an objective conclusion – then again this being P.ie – context and objectivity are a foreign country – subjectivity and the opportunity to quote out of context is the modus operandi for most here, who judging by their contributions were mostly in short trousers or a twinkle in their daddy’s eye at this time and seem to have a major adversion to actually doing a bit of reading and studying anything except newspaper headlines and modern day accepted myth about this era.

If one is looking for a significant turning point in the management of Ireland’s financial and economic affairs – I think you have to go back to the 1970 budget where Minister George Colley became the first Irish Minister of Finance to run a current and ongoing budget deficit. Up until this time – since the foundation of the state in 1922 – Ireland had always balanced its books -It was a net creditor – an exporter of capital – in its financial dealings with the rest of the world up to then – unbelievable I know – but a fact – under Blythe,McEntee,O’Kelly,Aitken,McGilligan,Ryan,Swee tman and Lynch – all under the stern conservative secretaries of the Dept of finance like O’Brien,Brennan and McElligott and even the watchful eye of Whittaker – Ireland balanced its books- at whatever cost. All governments from the 1920s to the early 60′s were run on this principle – balanced books, small government and we spent whatever we earned – primarily in agricultural surpluses – in a way – for the first 40 years of our independence- the most important numbers defining our economic well-being was not the annual budget – but the prices for Irish meat and dairy produce on the auction floors of Billingsgate (The wholesale London food markets).

Now for all my FF friends here -many of whom are newly converted zealots to the joys of financial thrift and prudence – while balancing the books produced intense orgasms in the Institute of Chartered Accountancy and made Ireland look good in the eyes of Whitehall ( the overwhelming need to look good in front of the Brits and imitate and finally outdo the Brits at whatever the Brits were currently doing -from sports to economic policy- no matter how crazy or backward the policy or that it was bound to end in falling off a cliff – we Irish could out do the Brits in anything -((something that hasn’t changed it would appear to anybody who objectively witnessed our property boom))- was a countrywide phenomenon regardless of political affiliation,religion or class – this need to ape Britain at every juncture – no matter how unsuited to Ireland – was to have major ramifications) – the negative effects of this policy were very clear too – domestic economic activity was subdued and decreased and didn’t recover until the mid 60′s – the result of this was the usual spiralling circle of decreased economic activity, resulting in lower tax takes, resulting in cutbacks in spending and tax increases, which resulted in capital moving abroad, which resulted in a further credit tightening, which resulted in the further decreasing economic activity,which resulted in diminishing tax returns, which resulted in.. yeh know how the story goes………..are you watching Mr Lenihan?… we’ve played this tune before and it took us the bones of 40 years to change the record! -

All in All – even given FF increased spending in social welfare as it reversed Blythe’s cutbacks – it was paid for by higher taxes on higher earning and capital – Irish economic activity plateaued for the bones of 30 years – its stability kept in place due to the fact that we borrowed f.all for anything, emigration,a basic healthcare system and a poor diet kept the dole and pension queues small and short lived (its gas when you look back on Gov papers from the”Emergency” years – guess the one thing that had the Government sh^tting it and preparing for the worst and words like ” it could sink the state” being said around the cabinet table? – German invasion? – nope – British invasion? – nope – it was the fear that the 250-300,000 Irish men and women who joined the British armed forces and worked in the factories , would all come home at the end of war when Britain demobilized,join the dole queue and sink the state!- I kid you not! – all in all it just about sums up Irish economic policy during this time – keep it cheap -keep them poor and pure – pray for good agricultural prices and make sure any potential troublemakers are on a boat out of here (Irelands own Transportation policy)

It was lemasses rise to Taoiseach, a changing of the old guard at the both the cabinet table and at cabinet secretary level and lemass’s determination to break the previous cycle – through borrowing for investment and state intervention – that started to set the economic story of Ireland for the next 50 years. The 60s saw a period of economic growth with the liberalisation of trade barriers – the effects of the killing off a lot of private enterprise that had been protected previously under tariffs was camouflaged by the arrival of FDI and the expansion of the state and state sponsored enterprises – the arrival of Television increased the populations desires for the better things in life – the fact that Northern Ireland was clearly much better off materially, with superior social services was something that also irked – there was also much union agitation for higher wages on an annual basis – which were caved into most of the time and were going to be unsustainable in the long run unless economic performance – particularly exports radically improved – something that Whittaker clearly flagged on his retirement from the Dof in 1965 – by 1966 the bloom had come off Irelands export expansion and Englands devaluation in 1968 didn’t help matters either

Fancy that eh? – A FF Taoiseach and a Dub – even a born northsider and man of the people leading the country into an unsustainable domestic consumer boom built on the balanced books left to him by his predecessors and a minor export boom that quickly fizzled out – yet left with the higher wages and costs and a domestic credit party so drunk that they didnt realise the bus that brought them had left and they would need expensive taxis to get home ?- I mean where have we heard that before eh – I’ve always wondered if Lemass saw this coming and decided to get out while the going was good – funny the parallels with Ahern isn’t it tho?

That said – the 60′s “boom” was nothing compared to the late 90′s – and thats why Lemass is revered rather than burnt in effigy as Ahern will be – but it did start a worrying trend of borrowing for consumption rather than serious investment – Lemass was on to the right idea – but he underestimated the Irish people’s capacity for the quick stroke instead of patience,long term investment and delayed gratification and our wonderful capacity for disappearing up our own posteriors and believing that the world owed us a living cos we’re Irish (something 40 years of nation myth building and isolation did nothing to mitigate) – the 60s and the advent of modern communications had opened our eyes to how sh^t poor we actually were in comparison to the rest of Europe – especially in living standards – we wanted some of that – it was a pity we compared ourselves to Germany, the Scandinavian countries and the Benelux – a more accurate comparison would have been our current comrades in the PIGS troope – Portugal,Greece and Spain – also the 1968 revolts gave our union brothers – a cranky narrow-minded workshy bolshie lot even before then – even more succour for industrial disruption in their unquenchable desire for more pay for less work and to hell with the consequences. In short we wanted German living standards on a Greek level of economic sophistication and productivity and anybody who would tell us any differently could go to hell or into opposition in the Dail – the stage was set for the 70s and 80s – auction politics (never far from our hearts since Strongbow set about dividing and ruling after 1169 when you think of it) big time! – the other big thing about the 60′s was the reversal of immigration and the fact that we started to multiply like rabbits again – with consequences for the future.

Colley was the first to start the serious borrowing after our economy gave up the ghost of trying to keep up with our desires. In a desire to stop the 70′s being socialist and with a little help from the penultimate constituency gerrymander and the promise of a liberal helping of “whatever you’re having yourself” -FF comfortably won the 1969 election – seeing as we were only borrowing a “little bit” – I think we were talking 0.8% of GDP – sure why don’t we borrow another little bit while we wait for the economy to recover – its only around the corner! – well Lynch, god bless him – finance was never his strong point – even when he was Minister of Finance (then again at least he didn’t cash his paycheque in the Dail bar and keep it in a tin under his bed saving for his kids education when you could have got 10+ % interest in the Banks at the time – knowing f.all about economics or money is no impediment to being minister for finance when you’re in FF obviously) -in fairness he (lynch) with the North going Supernova and negotiating entry into the EEC obviously had other things on his mind – yet the economy did not pick up – exports were flatlining – and the babyboomers of the late 60′s and 70′s started to make their appearances in the demand for social services ( i was born in 72 and there were 38 in my class in a small rural village) – so we kept on borrowing in the hope that EU entry would help correct our finances – Lynch went to the polls in 73 under the reasonable expectation of winning but got pipped at the line by an FG/Lab effort that got it its sh^t together that made the even more attractive promises to gild the lilly of the average voter and get the economy “moving” again and put manners on the slowly climbing inflation and unemployment rate – with EEC membership and increased revenues from agricultural sales looking a given – it seemed a reasonable bet.

Yon kippur 1973 came and went and so did the world economy in the same space of time and that was the end of that. The rocketing increase in the price of fuel and disruption that went with it in the aftermath of the war and embargo- allied with the fact that US ways already weary with its Vietnam commitments – pushed the world economy into freefall, surging inflation and massive borrowing to get the economies back into the black – This was the high season for that bastardised version of Keynesianism that appeared in the 60′s – for Ireland and Richie Ryan – the minister for Hardship – it was a very difficult time – 73 to 76 was very difficult with increased industrial unrest, requiring tax increases and a severe struggle to get borrowing under control ,let alone start decreasing it – by 1977 a degree of very very fragile stability was returning – increased and unexpected revenues from CAP were helping prop up what was elsewhere a very very dodgy scene – our export earnings were by nowhere near keeping up with our demands for more disposable incomes to spend on mainly imports and and better and more social services.

In 77 – Cosgrave went to the polls , like lynch in 73, in reasonable expectation of winning -given, by the standards of that crazy decade, things were relatively stable, and materially, the average citizen never had it so good to borrow McMillans quip. like 73 – Fianna Fail ,a very poor opposition, desperate to get back in government – promised the world and the kitchen sink to everybody and his donkey – reading the manifesto today – man – was there anybody with a calculator within a 100 mile radius when they were drawing up that piece of infamy? – did they seriously believe that this level of borrowing could be sustained – on top of what was already being borrowed! -

It earned 90 seats and government – Martin O Donoghue – the author of the manifesto was given his own “super” makey-uppey Department , with Colley again in Finance – It became obvious in mid 79 that we were reaching the end of our credit limits and that the borrowing level could not be sustained – the EEC were sounding warnings – then the Arabs threw another spanner in the works by jacking up the price of oil again -starting off another world recession – the unions – particularly , the public sector were after inflation busting payrises (not realising that it was this that was considerably contributing to the inflation spike – or did they care?) – also with our entrance into the ERM – the bonuses from CAP came to an end and prices started to fall due to serious overproduction – a proposal to impose a 2% levy on the farmers came to a quick and decisive end when Colley was forced to back down – with Haughey one of the main populist dissenters . Regardless Colley was gone by 80 – Haughey was in charge – and he knew that we wouldn’t get the same deal off the IMF and international financiers that he had got off AIB – ie 50% of our Public Debt written off – so in midst of all the strikes etc etc -he went and gave his famous broadcast – it was very convincing for a good proportion of the population hearthily sick of the state we had got ourselves in – So with a comfortable majority and fair approval from the electorate – why the F. did he turn around and do exactly the opposite? – caving in to every feckin sponger who turned up at his doorstep? – were the internal tensions within the FF party that bad? was the militant wing of the labour party that much of a threat? – looking at FG manifestos from 81/82 – FG were offering leadership,trust ,Garrett and tough decisions – but very little by the way of financial bribes – why did Haughey have to go on a final financial bender ? – Its a real pity that easily the most gifted,controversial , yet insecure Taoiseach we ever had never wrote an autobiography or published a diary -even for posthumous release – we’ll never know the answer.

So thats the prologue for Garrett Fitz’s reign of infamy in the 1980s – public borrowing totally and utterly out of control -forecast for 35% of GDP in 1981 until the election and Bruton managed to get it down to under 30% – rampant inflation -the price of taytos went up on a weekly basis it appeared to me- rising unemployment -the economy crumbling and totally uncompetitive where a direct phonecall from Donegal to Dublin would have to be arranged the day before with the local operator -the population totally sugared out of their heads on unsustainable bribes -a rising population looking for and requiring vastly more than the creaking education and health services could provide – the unions who though they ran the country and coalition with a unruly and divided labour party suffering from militant infestation and constantly looking over its shoulder for fear of being out flanked on the left – Dont forget kids- there really was a Soviet Union back then with real nuclear missiles and most of the left here truely believed that it was the land to be imitated and that capitalism was on its knees after the turbulent 70′s -one more push and it would fall over – over half the membership of the labour party and everybody further left than them believed this – if the 70s didnt go socialist – well then the 80′s were definitely going to.

Given this – it was no surprise that Brutons budget fell – Kemmy couldn’t stomach it , neither could many in the Labour party so it was kind of convenient in a uniquely Irish moral kind of a way that we could nail it on Brutal Bruton and his tax on kids shoes – I not going to talk much about Haughey’s brief interval in 82 – suffice to say not much happened – the debt kept on going up as Haughey kept McSharry on the leash and the workers party wouldn’t vote for the budget that was needed and the rest of the time was total GUBU and internal FF infighting on live TV every night. Not surprisingly, as funny amused and totally enrapted as we were by the FF Telly Novella -if the situation hadn’t been so unbelievably dire I think we would have stuck with FF -it was great gas around then- political infighting and intrigue,terrorists everywhere,kidnappings,fingers being cut off, real snow, betting on how late the train would be into the station ,if it didn’t break down or go on strike,etc etc etc – Jesus it was like living in the episode of the A-Team where they go off to some third world banana republic – the people wearily turned to boring FG but of course gave them the delusional brothers for company- the stats do speak for themselves – to keep the government an ongoing concern and the uppiddy and short-fused socialists on board – compromises had to be made between a short sharp shock or a more transitional approach – the immediate effect of such austerity measures was an immediate rise in unemployment and emigration as uncompetitive and hopelessly dependent domestic industry started to die off – the world recession saw the end of motor manufacturing and the first wave of FDI leave these shores too – but were replaced by HP,Intel and others putting down roots – making these jobs gold-dust – the unions went ape at every opportunity – but after 1984 and the vision of Thatcher started to sober up – its no co-incidence that it was after this time that the Gov got the leeway to start serious cutbacks and that inflation dropped away from over 20% in 1981 to 4% in 1987 – the hard medicine was being dispensed and the country was not enjoying it – but the EC and IMF approved and Ireland’s credit rating slowly began to turn – in 1987 – Garrett FitzGerald could point to a much better record in managing the economy than any gov since the 1960s – but once again the population voted for the party that promised” to put money back in your pocket” and boldly proclaimed from Billboards the country over that ” cuts hurt the aged, the sick and the poor”

Sure – The Garrett Fitz gov could have done better – with 20/20 hindsight – the non-implimenation of the Telsis report and labour blocking Bolands reform of the public sector come to mind and they boobed big time falling for AIB’s bluff over ICI- but as we say these days – they were where they were.

Anybody who thinks that people voted for FF to implement the continued progamme of cutbacks and economies that they did in 1987 -is completely out of their minds and is denying reality – Haughey’s populist opposition during 82 to 87 is a shameful episode in FF’s history. He threw the FF manifesto out the window and let McSharry off the leash – because he had no other choice – The EC,IMF and even Dukes and Fitzgerald in private conversation with Charlie during the interim left him in no doubt that the hard medicine had to be followed – anyway he had become a figure of hate on the left and none of them would support him so he had rule as a minority gov with only the support of FG and the PDs on economic matters only – now, with only his backbenchers to fear – he went and did the right thing.

The big question – that shall forever remain unanswered is – what would Haughey have done if he had won an overall majority on the populist ,more borrowing ,more spending manifesto that he ran on in 1987?

Its a very good question!

then main lesson to be learned from all of this ? – if we have to borrow – we borrow for investment – not consumption – as relevant in 2010 as it was 1960- and that the population have to be educated into where wealth actually comes from – ie not the government or feckin houses.

Context Context Context folks – trying to analyse and comment on history or anything by isolating it chronologically is a total waste of time”

Budget 2010 – where do we go from here?

// December 10th, 2009 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

I think the core belief for the minister for Finance is that earnings in the private sector are already down and that the public sector earnings which are paid for from taxes levied on those private sector earnings had to follow them down. So I tend to agree that we had to bridge a 4 billion gap but I don’t agree with how it was done. (this notion that because we agree about the size of the problem that we all agree on the approach is lunacy but lunacy that you can get away with because of the lack of numeracy and more generally confidence with maths that exists in the media. People work in the media because they were good at English or had good social skills and could express themselves not because they could add. No more than people get the big prizes or the big for Physics, Economics or engineer not because of their ability to coordinate their wardrobe or be the first with the bon mots). Agreeing the gap is 4 billion is like saying the gap across that river is 400m, that doesn’t mean you agree with the suggestion of others that we dam the river or build a bridge or a raft.

Taking just one example of where I think we’ve gone wrong. I have to wonder at the mentality behind the cuts to those under 25. Why does a single person of 30 need more than one of 20? If ever there was a sign that the state does not have any time or faith in younger people then that was it. The notion that some adults should be at home with their parents is not even Victorian. I’m well past being in that cohort but I would have thought the last thing someone in authority with any appreciation of history would do during the worst downturn since the 30s is target young people with time on their hands and muscle at their disposal. All that is necessary now is a harsh winter and some demagogue to appear with a winning and simplistic way out of this and we’re well on our way to civil unrest before the summer has started.

Perhaps, that is all part of Lenihan’s plan make some elements of the population so angry they abandon democracy rather than vote for any of the opposition.

I personally think that the trade union movement as it is exists primarily as a public sector beast is facing a massive moment. I can’t see strikes this side of Christmas but a phased and escalated plan of action starting in mid Jan has to be almost certain now. Truth is if the unions had the faith that their members were 100% behind them they would go out 1 day a week more each week until they were completely out on strike and they would sit outside the Dáil or some such public buildings a la Ukraine. The problem is that I suspect the union membership aren’t all that convinced of their own argument, sure the lower paid, those on 30K and under are righteous but I can’t help think that some of those on 50K and more wouldn’t feel less than bullish about sitting out for a few nights to defend their salaries.

The odd thing is that the government may welcome such a confrontation as some voters who have drifted away from them because of their dithering over the last 2 years might be attracted back because of a show of strength even if it is just a show.