Rory Hearne: The draft Programme for Partnership signals that the new Government will give urgently needed prioritisation to the housing and homelessness crisis. Positive measures include a commitment to “significantly” increase the delivery of social housing units, raising the level of rent supplement, developing “cost rental” housing, addressing mortgage arrears and progressing
the right to housing in the Constitution.
Showing posts with label Programme for Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Programme for Government. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 May 2016
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
The people have spoken - but what did they say?
Michael Burke: The first clear message of the 2011 election was a rejection of Fianna Fáil, receiving just 17.4% of the first preference vote – also of over 24% of the entire electorate. Given that the unlamented PDs had also been effectively absorbed by FF, and the Greens (who stayed just long enough to help through a draconian budget, but not a weak climate change bill) were also obliterated, there was effectively 30% of the electorate in motion.
Fine Gael was not the main, or even the primary, beneficiary of that dramatic break with FF, receiving just 8.8% of that 30% compared to the 2007 election. The primary beneficiary was Labour, up 9.3%. But the main beneficiary was a generic Left, comprising Labour, Sinn Féin, a majority of the ‘Independents’ and the smaller socialist parties. The combined FF/FG/Green/PD vote in 2007 was 76.3%. That fell to 55.3% in 2011. The combined Labour/Sinn Féin/socialist vote rose from 17.6% to approximately 43% (depending on how many you assign to the Left from among the Independents’ vote).
So, there was a sharp turn towards the Left, but not an outright victory for it. 43% is not 50%.
The key issue was clearly the economy, and the election was held against the backdrop of the recent arrival of the EU/IMF representatives in Ireland, to dictate terms of the bailout of the EU banks. Given that FF was the main architect of the response to the economic crisis and presided over the arrival of the raiding party, then voters were clearly rejecting more of the same. A key aspect of the campaign, and probable determinant of the outcome, was the parties’ attitude towards the terms of that bailout and the further imposition of cuts in public spending to underwrite it. (In another post, the issue of the viability of that programme will be addressed).
In that regard, every single party that stood in the campaign, bar the outgoing coalition partners, argued that that they would at least ‘renegotiate’ the bailout deal. Both FG and Labour spokespeople argued that point repeatedly in the course of the campaign, with Enda Kenny in particular promoting his party’s ties with EU counterparts as the best way to achieve a renegotiation.
Now, it appears from the weekend reports of the EU summit that no such renegotiation is currently possible. Under attack over the 12.5% corporate tax rate, the new Taoiseach and his team seem on the defensive. In any event, the suggested quid-pro-quo of a 1% reduction on the EU portion of the bailout funds would yield a saving of only €450mn per annum. While this is not nothing, it is overwhelmed by the public spending cuts and the bank bailout, the latest installment of €10bn likely to be paid before the month is out.
This payout highlights a clear anomaly in the outcome of the election and the intransigence of the EU leaders, some of whom seem more concerned with their own future tied to the outcome of regional elections or with bombing Libya. Yet, at the election, more than 75% of the population voted for parties or individuals who stood on a platform of renegotiating the deal. The voters of have spoken – but the EU refuses to listen.
Therefore the only reasonable response is to make the same case in a more forceful way. There should be a referendum on the bailout of EU banks by Irish taxpayers, with a rejection obliging a full renegotiation. Then perhaps the EU will listen.
Fine Gael was not the main, or even the primary, beneficiary of that dramatic break with FF, receiving just 8.8% of that 30% compared to the 2007 election. The primary beneficiary was Labour, up 9.3%. But the main beneficiary was a generic Left, comprising Labour, Sinn Féin, a majority of the ‘Independents’ and the smaller socialist parties. The combined FF/FG/Green/PD vote in 2007 was 76.3%. That fell to 55.3% in 2011. The combined Labour/Sinn Féin/socialist vote rose from 17.6% to approximately 43% (depending on how many you assign to the Left from among the Independents’ vote).
So, there was a sharp turn towards the Left, but not an outright victory for it. 43% is not 50%.
The key issue was clearly the economy, and the election was held against the backdrop of the recent arrival of the EU/IMF representatives in Ireland, to dictate terms of the bailout of the EU banks. Given that FF was the main architect of the response to the economic crisis and presided over the arrival of the raiding party, then voters were clearly rejecting more of the same. A key aspect of the campaign, and probable determinant of the outcome, was the parties’ attitude towards the terms of that bailout and the further imposition of cuts in public spending to underwrite it. (In another post, the issue of the viability of that programme will be addressed).
In that regard, every single party that stood in the campaign, bar the outgoing coalition partners, argued that that they would at least ‘renegotiate’ the bailout deal. Both FG and Labour spokespeople argued that point repeatedly in the course of the campaign, with Enda Kenny in particular promoting his party’s ties with EU counterparts as the best way to achieve a renegotiation.
Now, it appears from the weekend reports of the EU summit that no such renegotiation is currently possible. Under attack over the 12.5% corporate tax rate, the new Taoiseach and his team seem on the defensive. In any event, the suggested quid-pro-quo of a 1% reduction on the EU portion of the bailout funds would yield a saving of only €450mn per annum. While this is not nothing, it is overwhelmed by the public spending cuts and the bank bailout, the latest installment of €10bn likely to be paid before the month is out.
This payout highlights a clear anomaly in the outcome of the election and the intransigence of the EU leaders, some of whom seem more concerned with their own future tied to the outcome of regional elections or with bombing Libya. Yet, at the election, more than 75% of the population voted for parties or individuals who stood on a platform of renegotiating the deal. The voters of have spoken – but the EU refuses to listen.
Therefore the only reasonable response is to make the same case in a more forceful way. There should be a referendum on the bailout of EU banks by Irish taxpayers, with a rejection obliging a full renegotiation. Then perhaps the EU will listen.
Sunday, 6 March 2011
A new programme for a new society?
Slí Eile: In the coming days there will be considerable debate and analysis of the content of the Programme for Government agreed by Fine Gael and Labour. Consideration of the major issues involved and the posing of some difficult questions are needed. In particular:
Give or take a billion here and there and give or take a year or two in timing - will it be possible to operate within the broad parameters of the EU/IMF deflationary plan as already agreed and carried forward in the new Programme?
If social welfare rates are maintained as indicated in the Programme AND pay rates in the public sector are kept intact under the Croke Park Agreement AND'frontline' services in education and health are maintained - what is left to cut within the aim of cutting spending by 6 billion over the next five years or so?
Will the cuts to spending and increases in taxes be 'gross' or 'net'? For every cut of €1bn in public spending at least €0.3bn is directly lost in taxes and other social receipts and, in addition, an unknown amount is lost indirectly through falling incomes and domestic demand. So, to achieve a net fiscal adjustment of say €9bn over 5 years would require a much larger 'gross' adjustment - two thirds of which is agreed will come from spending?
but what spending? All the big areas have been cut to the bone and in some cases health services on are on the point of collapse. It is true that there are areas - even still - of public spending waste. However, rather than continuing to cut these Government should be increasing spending and restoring social welfare cuts already made in order to arrest the decline in income and demand.
What if the slump continues, oil prices rocket, exports stall and the Eurozone goes into a new crisis? What is plan B?
More to the point - does the Programme represent the best that can be achieved at this time in ameliorating the impact of the slump on the poor and the exclude and does it provide the best possible way forward in realising a society based on equality and democracy?
Honestly can we say yes to this question while operating within the broad parameters of the markets, the EU and the IMF?
Next week will be the same as last week - for at least five key issues confront most individuals, families and communities in Ireland today:
* Paid work in the labour market
* Unpaid caring work
* Debts - personal, corporate and societal
* Homes - places where people live and are nurtured
* Health and well-being
These issues boil down to two core issues - human dignity and human solidarity.
In the current political and economic crisis which afflicts Ireland since 2008 and whose roots go back over many years the following three sets of policies are being pursued with deadly impact on jobs, homes, debt:
* Further reductions in the share of national income going to labour (dressed up as improving competitiveness).
* A smaller State (we have all heard the talk about 'big government', 'quangos', 'bloated public service' and 'welfare dependency')
* A bailout by the many small lenders for the big creditors solemnised at the faustian marriage of sovereign and private (now socialised) banking debt.
Is the new programme a continuation of this? is it the only possible game in town?
A response to this unprecedented assault on the public services and living standards of most citizens requires a robust, timely and realistic consensus among the 'broad left' centered on a new Five Point Plan
1. Privitise the debt and no socialism please for large corporate interests! - with a massive reduction in the share of public expenditure and liabilities going towards corporate private debt (if that means part default, part re-schedule, part debt-equity swap then so be it).
2. Hold the level of other government consumption spending and increase the level of capital funding in a targeted way to generate economic recovery and employment growth using greener technology and patterns of consumption
3. Address the fiscal deficit in an orderly, timely and proportionate way by:
a. Growing the economy over a period of time
b. Cutting public expenditure on bank bailouts and redirecting spending into jobs, green technology and revenue-raising activities
c. Raising taxes on high-income and high-wealth individuals
d. Generating additional tax revenue by getting more people back to work
4. Reform the management and organisation of public services together with political institutions allied to stronger stakeholder governance in the private sector
5. Abolish poverty - especially child poverty - by means of a combination of tax/welfare changes to ensure that everyone can live and work (whether paid or not) on at least a basic minimum wage consistent with human dignity and solidarity.
More comments over the coming days. In the meantime as people work their way through the document comments, observations are welcome.
Give or take a billion here and there and give or take a year or two in timing - will it be possible to operate within the broad parameters of the EU/IMF deflationary plan as already agreed and carried forward in the new Programme?
If social welfare rates are maintained as indicated in the Programme AND pay rates in the public sector are kept intact under the Croke Park Agreement AND'frontline' services in education and health are maintained - what is left to cut within the aim of cutting spending by 6 billion over the next five years or so?
Will the cuts to spending and increases in taxes be 'gross' or 'net'? For every cut of €1bn in public spending at least €0.3bn is directly lost in taxes and other social receipts and, in addition, an unknown amount is lost indirectly through falling incomes and domestic demand. So, to achieve a net fiscal adjustment of say €9bn over 5 years would require a much larger 'gross' adjustment - two thirds of which is agreed will come from spending?
but what spending? All the big areas have been cut to the bone and in some cases health services on are on the point of collapse. It is true that there are areas - even still - of public spending waste. However, rather than continuing to cut these Government should be increasing spending and restoring social welfare cuts already made in order to arrest the decline in income and demand.
What if the slump continues, oil prices rocket, exports stall and the Eurozone goes into a new crisis? What is plan B?
More to the point - does the Programme represent the best that can be achieved at this time in ameliorating the impact of the slump on the poor and the exclude and does it provide the best possible way forward in realising a society based on equality and democracy?
Honestly can we say yes to this question while operating within the broad parameters of the markets, the EU and the IMF?
Next week will be the same as last week - for at least five key issues confront most individuals, families and communities in Ireland today:
* Paid work in the labour market
* Unpaid caring work
* Debts - personal, corporate and societal
* Homes - places where people live and are nurtured
* Health and well-being
These issues boil down to two core issues - human dignity and human solidarity.
In the current political and economic crisis which afflicts Ireland since 2008 and whose roots go back over many years the following three sets of policies are being pursued with deadly impact on jobs, homes, debt:
* Further reductions in the share of national income going to labour (dressed up as improving competitiveness).
* A smaller State (we have all heard the talk about 'big government', 'quangos', 'bloated public service' and 'welfare dependency')
* A bailout by the many small lenders for the big creditors solemnised at the faustian marriage of sovereign and private (now socialised) banking debt.
Is the new programme a continuation of this? is it the only possible game in town?
A response to this unprecedented assault on the public services and living standards of most citizens requires a robust, timely and realistic consensus among the 'broad left' centered on a new Five Point Plan
1. Privitise the debt and no socialism please for large corporate interests! - with a massive reduction in the share of public expenditure and liabilities going towards corporate private debt (if that means part default, part re-schedule, part debt-equity swap then so be it).
2. Hold the level of other government consumption spending and increase the level of capital funding in a targeted way to generate economic recovery and employment growth using greener technology and patterns of consumption
3. Address the fiscal deficit in an orderly, timely and proportionate way by:
a. Growing the economy over a period of time
b. Cutting public expenditure on bank bailouts and redirecting spending into jobs, green technology and revenue-raising activities
c. Raising taxes on high-income and high-wealth individuals
d. Generating additional tax revenue by getting more people back to work
4. Reform the management and organisation of public services together with political institutions allied to stronger stakeholder governance in the private sector
5. Abolish poverty - especially child poverty - by means of a combination of tax/welfare changes to ensure that everyone can live and work (whether paid or not) on at least a basic minimum wage consistent with human dignity and solidarity.
More comments over the coming days. In the meantime as people work their way through the document comments, observations are welcome.
Monday, 12 October 2009
Renewed Programme for Government: first few pages
Slí Eile: The Renewed Programme for Government is a mixed bag. It contains some very worthy aspirations not least those bearing the ecological imprint. It also affirms that there will be no deviation from the fundamental path set by the April Supplementary Budget. In the absence of any qualifying statement we have to assume that any changes or ring-fencing of public spending (such as in education – although the details remain to be seen) will be within the targets set to achieve a 3% public deficit by 2013.
In other words we are looking at comparatively minor adjustments within a fixed adjustment process - €4bn this year; €4bn next year and €4bn. If my sums are right that adds up to €12bn! Set that level of deflation against a total public spend of over €70bn (in 2008). That’s a lot of money to take out of circulation (and indirectly to start re-cycling it to guess where). In the 1980s adjustment it was claimed that a crowding in of private sector investment was brought about by a reduction in crowding-out public spending at the time. At this speed and scale, it would seem that a €16bn adjustment process will crowd a lot of things out including consumer and real (non-estate and non-financial) investor confidence. Lets hope not and lets hope that the Government will not go ahead with this scale of amputation of public services and transfers to poor households.
Tax Reform
‘Eliminate unnecessary tax reliefs and ensure that those relief schemes which are closed to new entrants will be eliminated during the lifetime of the government where possible’
Just how many of the 100 plus tax relief schemes will be delivered in 2010, 2011 and 2012? Why wait that long? What about uncollected taxes as of September 2009?
The references to more carbon taxes, changes to local government funding and raising of the PRSI ceiling are welcome in my view. However, how much of this will really be delivered and how will the promised adjustments for any negative impacts for poorer households be effected?
Pensions
‘a single 30% rate for tax relief on private pension provision’ Still no sight of the White Paper on Pensions. And clearly, the coalition partners are signed up for a continuation of the present fragmented and inequitable system of provision for long-term income for our seniors to be. A standardisation of tax relief is welcome compared to what exists presently but we should be thinking much more creatively and boldly about a public social insurance approach to pensions funded on a continental basis.
‘There are strong indications that the tough decisions of the past year are starting to bear fruit.’ (p6)
For sure there are. You only have to look at the freefall in tax receipts as more businesses fold, people going on the dole and consumption is decreased by levies on low-income households.
Higher Education
‘We will take on 1,000 Third and Fourth level graduates to provide additional capacity and skills across the public service and in Government Departments and provide valuable work experience.’ (p6)
That’s a very good idea. How does this relate to Bord Snip proposals to cut 17,000 jobs in the wider public service?
‘We will implement incentives for employees to up-skill in preparation for the Smart Economy skills on a part time basis, as set out in the Comhar “Green New Deal’ (p7)
Good point. However, no detail accompanies this. What, concretely, has been achieved since the Smart Economy document of last December?
‘We will invest for the future by setting a target to achieve a national R&D investment of 3% of GDP, public and private combined’ (p9)
When? How?
‘Develop Ireland as an international location for Energy Efficient Data Centres and cloud computing.’ (p9)
Pardon my ignorance of such matters but can anyone enlighten on this line?
ICT innovation
Some good ideas – but nothing new – are stated here. Given the failure of privitised eircom to deliver on broadband with the consequences all too clear coupled with the general failure of most state IT projects some new thinking and action is urgently needed here. This should be linked to the skills already there in third and fourth levels. For far too long state agencies have been captive to private sector consultancy with very poor results in terms of having joined up, accessible and cost-effective ‘e-government’ (Revenue Commissioners are, at least, one very obvious exception to this).
‘Subject to European Stimulus Funding, we will make broadband available to every house in the country by 2012.’ This reminds me of a promise made in the local elections in 1991 to literally ‘fill in every pot hole on every road in the country’. Somehow we recall seeing many potholes up to and including 2008.
This is amazing especially considering where we have come from in the last 10 years. Its like saying in 1973: subject to funding from the EEC, we (?) will provide colour TV to every house in the country providing they can pay for it. Food, Fuel and Furnishing for struggling families would be more helpful in the first place. Broadband is in serious need of upgrading and extending, though.
Its late. I have only got to page 9. More in a few days. At the beginning of the Document we find the following: ‘Unless we take radical and bold action to resolve the crisis that has staunched the flow of credit, the economy will not recover’ (p3)
Time will tell – but this document is unlikely to achieve this. Rather it will deepen the economic crisis. We need a genuine new deal.
In other words we are looking at comparatively minor adjustments within a fixed adjustment process - €4bn this year; €4bn next year and €4bn. If my sums are right that adds up to €12bn! Set that level of deflation against a total public spend of over €70bn (in 2008). That’s a lot of money to take out of circulation (and indirectly to start re-cycling it to guess where). In the 1980s adjustment it was claimed that a crowding in of private sector investment was brought about by a reduction in crowding-out public spending at the time. At this speed and scale, it would seem that a €16bn adjustment process will crowd a lot of things out including consumer and real (non-estate and non-financial) investor confidence. Lets hope not and lets hope that the Government will not go ahead with this scale of amputation of public services and transfers to poor households.
Tax Reform
‘Eliminate unnecessary tax reliefs and ensure that those relief schemes which are closed to new entrants will be eliminated during the lifetime of the government where possible’
Just how many of the 100 plus tax relief schemes will be delivered in 2010, 2011 and 2012? Why wait that long? What about uncollected taxes as of September 2009?
The references to more carbon taxes, changes to local government funding and raising of the PRSI ceiling are welcome in my view. However, how much of this will really be delivered and how will the promised adjustments for any negative impacts for poorer households be effected?
Pensions
‘a single 30% rate for tax relief on private pension provision’ Still no sight of the White Paper on Pensions. And clearly, the coalition partners are signed up for a continuation of the present fragmented and inequitable system of provision for long-term income for our seniors to be. A standardisation of tax relief is welcome compared to what exists presently but we should be thinking much more creatively and boldly about a public social insurance approach to pensions funded on a continental basis.
‘There are strong indications that the tough decisions of the past year are starting to bear fruit.’ (p6)
For sure there are. You only have to look at the freefall in tax receipts as more businesses fold, people going on the dole and consumption is decreased by levies on low-income households.
Higher Education
‘We will take on 1,000 Third and Fourth level graduates to provide additional capacity and skills across the public service and in Government Departments and provide valuable work experience.’ (p6)
That’s a very good idea. How does this relate to Bord Snip proposals to cut 17,000 jobs in the wider public service?
‘We will implement incentives for employees to up-skill in preparation for the Smart Economy skills on a part time basis, as set out in the Comhar “Green New Deal’ (p7)
Good point. However, no detail accompanies this. What, concretely, has been achieved since the Smart Economy document of last December?
‘We will invest for the future by setting a target to achieve a national R&D investment of 3% of GDP, public and private combined’ (p9)
When? How?
‘Develop Ireland as an international location for Energy Efficient Data Centres and cloud computing.’ (p9)
Pardon my ignorance of such matters but can anyone enlighten on this line?
ICT innovation
Some good ideas – but nothing new – are stated here. Given the failure of privitised eircom to deliver on broadband with the consequences all too clear coupled with the general failure of most state IT projects some new thinking and action is urgently needed here. This should be linked to the skills already there in third and fourth levels. For far too long state agencies have been captive to private sector consultancy with very poor results in terms of having joined up, accessible and cost-effective ‘e-government’ (Revenue Commissioners are, at least, one very obvious exception to this).
‘Subject to European Stimulus Funding, we will make broadband available to every house in the country by 2012.’ This reminds me of a promise made in the local elections in 1991 to literally ‘fill in every pot hole on every road in the country’. Somehow we recall seeing many potholes up to and including 2008.
This is amazing especially considering where we have come from in the last 10 years. Its like saying in 1973: subject to funding from the EEC, we (?) will provide colour TV to every house in the country providing they can pay for it. Food, Fuel and Furnishing for struggling families would be more helpful in the first place. Broadband is in serious need of upgrading and extending, though.
Its late. I have only got to page 9. More in a few days. At the beginning of the Document we find the following: ‘Unless we take radical and bold action to resolve the crisis that has staunched the flow of credit, the economy will not recover’ (p3)
Time will tell – but this document is unlikely to achieve this. Rather it will deepen the economic crisis. We need a genuine new deal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)