The re-election auction has begun

gandalf · 23-03-2015 2:22pm #1

So the current Government now on the backs of slightly better figures are starting to engage in "paying off" particular demographics of voters.

The pensioners are first in line with their generosity with our (the tax payers) monies.

The over-70s may even end up becoming the first cohort to benefit from the extension of the cover due to delays in negotiations with doctors for care for children under six.

About 36,000 over-70s - out of a total over-70s population of 390,000 - currently pay to attend a family doctor as they are not covered by a medical card or an existing GP visit card.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/free-gp-visits-for-35000-over70s-patients-by-june-31086762.html

The cynic in me obviously sees this as a blatant attempt to influence a demographic who traditionally would have had a high voter turnout.

So what additional potential "bribes" do we reckon we will see before April 2016?

BoJack Horseman · 23-03-2015 2:39pm

Time will tell, but if tax receipts perform really really well, its not implausible for the USC to be done away with at the next budget.

If so, FG would lock down reelection there & then.

It would just require freezing other income taxes/bands & continued spending restraint.

You win more votes via taxes than via expenditure.

Godge · 23-03-2015 3:07pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Time will tell, but if tax receipts perform really really well, its not implausible for the USC to be done away with at the next budget.

If so, FG would lock down reelection there & then.

It would just require freezing other income taxes/bands & continued spending restraint.

You win more votes via taxes than via expenditure.

Can't get rid of USC, much better to reduce tax rates.

johnnyskeleton · 23-03-2015 4:32pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Time will tell, but if tax receipts perform really really well, its not implausible for the USC to be done away with at the next budget.

If so, FG would lock down reelection there & then.

It would just require freezing other income taxes/bands & continued spending restraint.

Michael Noonan wrote:

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2014-12-16a.298

It is estimated that USC receipts for 2014 will amount to around €4 billion, or approximately one quarter of total income tax receipts.

With a deficit down to €8,183m in 2014 (c. 3.7% of GDP), it is difficult to see how we could give up €4bn in revenue without some counter balance.

I suppose we are still notionally aiming to bring the deficit back under 3%, although the Stability and Growth Pact seems to be out the window at this stage.

Don't get me wrong, it would be a move that puts money back into almost every worker's pockets so would be generally well received. But much like the PRSI, Health Levy etc, it comes in as a temporary measure and is then either here to stay or will be replaced by a similar mechanism.

Also, USC is a fairly reliable source of income for them, which is risky to give up.

You win more votes via taxes than via expenditure.

As a general rule, I wouldn't agree. However in Ireland, 2015, tax cuts will win significant support and acclaim from people who might be minded to vote for FG/FF/Centre Ind but are sitting on the fence, so it's a smart move for FG to ensure that they soak up the centre/centre-right floating vote.

I'm not sure whether it would be good for Labour but I would suspect that they would be better off with new recruitment in the PS, increased salaries etc.

My prediction would be the giveaway will be in the region of €2bn, with approximately 2/3rds tax measures (mostly income, some other measures) and 1/3rd spending measures.

johnnyskeleton · 23-03-2015 4:36pm

gandalf wrote: »

So what additional potential "bribes" do we reckon we will see before April 2016?

Would there be anyone who would vote for the government if they specifically decided not to have a give away budget, but instead promised to keep working on balancing the books, getting Ireland back into the black and continuing to reduce the deficit in circumstances where we have curiously high growth (suggestive of another potential bubble)?

That's who I'd like to vote for.

BoJack Horseman · 23-03-2015 4:40pm

I agree with the merits of the USC.

However if you want to knock it out of the park, the USC is such a headline grabber, it will be tempting.

Joe public would genuinely rather its removal instead of an equivalent PAYE reduction.

The very name has become poisoned.

oscarBravo · 23-03-2015 4:52pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Would there be anyone who would vote for the government if they specifically decided not to have a give away budget, but instead promised to keep working on balancing the books, getting Ireland back into the black and continuing to reduce the deficit in circumstances where we have curiously high growth (suggestive of another potential bubble)?

I would. It won't happen though, because such a government would never be elected. We get the government we deserve.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I agree with the merits of the USC.

However if you want to knock it out of the park, the USC is such a headline grabber, it will be tempting.

Joe public would genuinely rather its removal instead of an equivalent PAYE reduction.

USC is one of the few measures that serves to broaden our ridiculously narrow income tax base.

A hugely simplistic and damaging narrative has entered all discussion on taxation in this country: the idea that the only metric by which a tax should be assessed is progressiveness. If a tax isn't aimed squarely and exclusively at a tiny percentage of high earners, it's dismissed as "regressive".

The most progressive tax imaginable would be total confiscation of all the wealth of whoever happens to be the highest net worth individual in the country in any given year. I don't think there's anyone who would argue that that would be a completely stupid taxation measure, which indicates that progressiveness in isolation isn't a useful metric.

It would be nice if we could all agree on that and discuss taxation strategies in a less one-dimensional way. For example, if we're going to get rid of USC, it has to be on the basis of reducing tax credits in order to make sure that relatively low-paid workers still contribute some income tax. But that won't happen, because the very idea will be greeted with the predictably shrill cries of "attacking the most vulnerable".

BoJack Horseman · 23-03-2015 4:56pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

A hugely simplistic and damaging narrative has entered all discussion on taxation in this country: the idea that the only metric by which a tax should be assessed is progressiveness. If a tax isn't aimed squarely and exclusively at a tiny percentage of high earners, it's dismissed as "regressive".

The most progressive tax imaginable would be total confiscation of all the wealth of whoever happens to be the highest net worth individual in the country in any given year. I don't think there's anyone who would argue that that would be a completely stupid taxation measure, which indicates that progressiveness in isolation isn't a useful metric.

It would be nice if we could all agree on that and discuss taxation strategies in a less one-dimensional way. For example, if we're going to get rid of USC, it has to be on the basis of reducing tax credits in order to make sure that relatively low-paid workers still contribute some income tax. But that won't happen, because the very idea will be greeted with the predictably shrill cries of "attacking the most vulnerable".

I agree with every word.

However the thread is about auction politics.

What is right, isn't what is popular.

Godge · 23-03-2015 5:07pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

With a deficit down to €8,183m in 2014 (c. 3.7% of GDP), it is difficult to see how we could give up €4bn in revenue without some counter balance.

I suppose we are still notionally aiming to bring the deficit back under 3%, although the Stability and Growth Pact seems to be out the window at this stage.

Don't get me wrong, it would be a move that puts money back into almost every worker's pockets so would be generally well received. But much like the PRSI, Health Levy etc, it comes in as a temporary measure and is then either here to stay or will be replaced by a similar mechanism.

Also, USC is a fairly reliable source of income for them, which is risky to give up.

As a general rule, I wouldn't agree. However in Ireland, 2015, tax cuts will win significant support and acclaim from people who might be minded to vote for FG/FF/Centre Ind but are sitting on the fence, so it's a smart move for FG to ensure that they soak up the centre/centre-right floating vote.

I'm not sure whether it would be good for Labour but I would suspect that they would be better off with new recruitment in the PS, increased salaries etc.

My prediction would be the giveaway will be in the region of €2bn, with approximately 2/3rds tax measures (mostly income, some other measures) and 1/3rd spending measures.

We are way ahead of target.

http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2015/FinancialStatement.aspx

"That is why I am targeting a deficit of 2.7% in Budget 2015, ahead of the required target of 2.9% of GDP. I think that it is appropriate to go beyond our requirements under the Stability and Growth Pact in order to build upon the progress made to date. Achieving a deficit below 3% does not signal an end to fiscal prudence in Ireland. Exceeding our target in 2015 will underpin solid, steady economic growth into the medium term and it is a further step on the way to balancing the budget. Even so, these figures do not fully reflect the progress that we are making as an element of the surplus income due from the Central Bank in 2015 is being used to only reduce the debt. If the entire surplus income was counted for deficit reduction, the forecast deficit would be 2.5% next year."

€5.3 bn is the target for 2015 2.7%.

The performance in January and February was astounding:

http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/Exchequer%20Returns%20end%20February%202015%20information%20note.pdf

A deficit of €205m for the two months, equivalent to €1.2 bn for the year. What is extremely interesting is that both income tax (7.1%) and VAT (11.3%) were way above profile, meaning they were much larger than the Department of Finance had predicted.

On the expenditure side, reduced unemployment and reduced interest bills mean that expenditure will be lower. I wouldn't be surprised if Noonan was planning for at least a 2% outturn this year. Assuming a further reduction in unemployment in 2016 and a further reduction in debt interest, this gives him €1.5 bn of a package for October without having to do anything assuming he is aiming for around 2.5%. With more people at work and getting pay rises and spending money, that will give a further boost to revenue without doing anything, it is not beyond possibility that his package of measures could be approaching €3 bn. Certainly if there are some counter-measures to raise income (closing off some tax breaks) a €3 bn package is certainly possible.

The leeway he is looking for in Europe would increase that further.

Godge · 23-03-2015 5:09pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I agree with the merits of the USC.

However if you want to knock it out of the park, the USC is such a headline grabber, it will be tempting.

Joe public would genuinely rather its removal instead of an equivalent PAYE reduction.

The very name has become poisoned.

Abolishing the USC would be one of the most regressive measures to affect the ordinary PAYE taxpayer. USC is paid on a whole hose of unearned income such as interest, rent, etc much of which avoids income tax. Getting rid of it would be of most benefit to the those who own wealth and would hit hardest on those who are working to earn future wealth.

gandalf · 23-03-2015 5:10pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Would there be anyone who would vote for the government if they specifically decided not to have a give away budget, but instead promised to keep working on balancing the books, getting Ireland back into the black and continuing to reduce the deficit in circumstances where we have curiously high growth (suggestive of another potential bubble)?

That's who I'd like to vote for.

And that is who I would and will vote for.

The problem I see is that all the parties who are going to be canvassing for our votes will not meet this requirement.

I already believe we are approaching another bubble the only saving grace is the lack of credit and homes but again I can see the Government or the next one (whatever hue it is) coming under severe pressure to remedy that. And looking at the populist parties that are vying for the votes of Joe Q Public I see far too many willing to throw financial probity out the door to get their snouts into the troughs of power.

ardmacha · 23-03-2015 5:11pm

I'm not sure that I agree with the title of this thread "auction politics". It is the business of a democratic government to serve its citizens and in general terms provide services that they wish to have. These measures may be criticised for some other reason, and above all the overall macroeconomic stance of the government has be appropriate. As always here, the thread often to come down to whether people like those who benefit from the changes and very short term analysis of the finances.

Gandalf's point about a bubble is relevant, but is it justified?

gandalf · 23-03-2015 5:22pm

I normally hate the term auction politics myself but today's announcement is so blatant that it is the most apt. The "coffin dodgers" are the demographic that do get out and vote the most and this is pandering to them when in reality the vast majority do not need to have this facility as they were the group that was "protected" from the vast majority of the pain since 2007.

johnnyskeleton · 23-03-2015 5:27pm

Godge wrote: »

We are way ahead of target.

...

€5.3 bn is the target for 2015 2.7%.

The performance in January and February was astounding:

http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/Exchequer%20Returns%20end%20February%202015%20information%20note.pdf

A deficit of €205m for the two months, equivalent to €1.2 bn for the year. What is extremely interesting is that both income tax (7.1%) and VAT (11.3%) were way above profile, meaning they were much larger than the Department of Finance had predicted.

I'm cautious about their predictions and suspect that the actual figures may fall short, although obviously this is more of a gut feeling than anything I can actually substantiate. There are three broad ways in which taxes can increase:

1) rates increase - it's not this;
2) economic activity increases - possibly;
3) more effective tax collection - e.g. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/taxman-hits-medical-consultants-for-20m-31048208.html ;

I guess I'm just cynical that where there is such a large jump it suggests the collection of taxes that were not paid in previous months, or were collected as a result of increased and more efficient audits etc rather than a dramatic increase in economic activity.

On the VAT, this really is a significant bump. I suppose it is possibly due to christmas/january sales spending/purchase of new cars.

I would also imagine that the deficit for the first two months cannot necessarily be extrapolated out across the whole year - neither receipts nor expenditure is static. However, I do accept that tax receipts are usually even higher in November/December due to annual returns, so the bumper month tax wise is still to come.

On the expenditure side, reduced unemployment and reduced interest bills mean that expenditure will be lower. I wouldn't be surprised if Noonan was planning for at least a 2% outturn this year. Assuming a further reduction in unemployment in 2016 and a further reduction in debt interest, this gives him €1.5 bn of a package for October without having to do anything assuming he is aiming for around 2.5%. With more people at work and getting pay rises and spending money, that will give a further boost to revenue without doing anything, it is not beyond possibility that his package of measures could be approaching €3 bn. Certainly if there are some counter-measures to raise income (closing off some tax breaks) a €3 bn package is certainly possible.

The leeway he is looking for in Europe would increase that further.

Difficult to disagree with this. I would imagine he will to keep a lid on it though

Godge · 23-03-2015 6:02pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm cautious about their predictions and suspect that the actual figures may fall short, although obviously this is more of a gut feeling than anything I can actually substantiate. There are three broad ways in which taxes can increase:

1) rates increase - it's not this;
2) economic activity increases - possibly;
3) more effective tax collection - e.g. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/taxman-hits-medical-consultants-for-20m-31048208.html ;

I guess I'm just cynical that where there is such a large jump it suggests the collection of taxes that were not paid in previous months, or were collected as a result of increased and more efficient audits etc rather than a dramatic increase in economic activity.

On the VAT, this really is a significant bump. I suppose it is possibly due to christmas/january sales spending/purchase of new cars.

I would also imagine that the deficit for the first two months cannot necessarily be extrapolated out across the whole year - neither receipts nor expenditure is static. However, I do accept that tax receipts are usually even higher in November/December due to annual returns, so the bumper month tax wise is still to come.

Those are all good points and they have been seen before.

However, it is the size of the January/February increase that is startling. I am wondering was there an extra pay day for fortnightly employees or something because the increase is so far outside expectations.

BoJack Horseman · 23-03-2015 6:04pm

Godge wrote: »

Abolishing the USC would be one of the most regressive measures to affect the ordinary PAYE taxpayer. USC is paid on a whole hose of unearned income such as interest, rent, etc much of which avoids income tax. Getting rid of it would be of most benefit to the those who own wealth and would hit hardest on those who are working to earn future wealth.

Indeed, but the ordinary joe soapes don't care about that.

Its new.... Its to pay the "banksters" & Denis O'Brien (though it isn't) & the opposition crow for its removal.

Considering buoyant exchequer returns, FG may be desperate enough to do it

ardmacha · 23-03-2015 6:53pm

gandalf wrote: »

I normally hate the term auction politics myself but today's announcement is so blatant that it is the most apt. The "coffin dodgers" are the demographic that do get out and vote the most and this is pandering to them when in reality the vast majority do not need to have this facility as they were the group that was "protected" from the vast majority of the pain since 2007.

The over 70s are the age cohort most likely to have medical expenses, so there is logic to this. Now you can argue that giving an entire group medical support, who need it to a varying extent, is at the expense of focussed assistance to seriously ill people of all ages. You can also argue that these policies are piecemeal, under 6s one time, over 7s the next, and do not reflect a much needed approach to general practice in society.

the groutch · 23-03-2015 8:51pm

Worst thing is those 36,000 are likely not getting the medical/GP cards because they're so filthy rich that the failed a means test.

So another €18m a year to line the pockets (and garner the votes) of the wealthy, instead of putting the money to use where it's actually needed.

blackwhite · 23-03-2015 10:41pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Would there be anyone who would vote for the government if they specifically decided not to have a give away budget, but instead promised to keep working on balancing the books, getting Ireland back into the black and continuing to reduce the deficit in circumstances where we have curiously high growth (suggestive of another potential bubble)?

That's who I'd like to vote for.

I'd applaud any Government that tried to take such a principled stand, but would also be sadly resigned to the fact that they'd have guaranteed a lost election at the same time.

The Bertie years proved the Irish electorate has a sizeable percentage of floating voters who will reward whatever party makes the most irresponsible promises of "free stuff."

joe912 · 23-03-2015 11:10pm

This government will do whatever short term gain measures necessary to regain power regardless of the long term cost.

expectationlost · 24-03-2015 7:48am

gandalf wrote: »

So the current Government now on the backs of slightly better figures are starting to engage in "paying off" particular demographics of voters.

The pensioners are first in line with their generosity with our (the tax payers) monies.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/free-gp-visits-for-35000-over70s-patients-by-june-31086762.html

The cynic in me obviously sees this as a blatant attempt to influence a demographic who traditionally would have had a high voter turnout.

So what additional potential "bribes" do we reckon we will see before April 2016?

was this not in the programme for government?

Cookie_Monster · 24-03-2015 10:15am

joe912 wrote: »

This government will do whatever short term gain measures necessary to regain power regardless of the long term cost.

exactly the same as any other Irish government, some things will never change

johnnyskeleton · 24-03-2015 10:29am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

exactly the same as any other Irish government, some things will never change

What needs to change is the electorate, and unfortunately that takes a lot of time. The general view in this thread seems to be that any politician who says that they will make the difficult choices and make sure that the country comes first rather than giving away treats will be applauded, but probably not re-elected.

I still think a large proportion of the Irish population view the government as something that gives and takes from them arbitrarily and you have to just get along with it or break the rules and try to get away with it. The idea that the State is all of us and that we only get back what we put in seems to be a sort of foreign* concept.

*foreign as in unknown, not foreign as in American etc.

Cookie_Monster · 24-03-2015 10:36am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What needs to change is the electorate, and unfortunately that takes a lot of time. The general view in this thread seems to be that any politician who says that they will make the difficult choices and make sure that the country comes first rather than giving away treats will be applauded, but probably not re-elected.

I still think a large proportion of the Irish population view the government as something that gives and takes from them arbitrarily and you have to just get along with it or break the rules and try to get away with it. The idea that the State is all of us and that we only get back what we put in seems to be a sort of foreign* concept.

*foreign as in unknown, not foreign as in American etc.

While all of that is true, STV is also part of the problem IMO. A party list system would be far more suitable. Anything that removes the local influence would be a major step forward in breaking the cycle of voting for 'the local' doing you favours.

STV means even if you vote on pure principle for no1 you can still vote for a couple of good local boys as backup

johnnyskeleton · 24-03-2015 10:56am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

While all of that is true, STV is also part of the problem IMO. A party list system would be far more suitable. Anything that removes the local influence would be a major step forward in breaking the cycle of voting for 'the local' doing you favours.

Just to tease this out in the context of this specific topic, however, I wonder are auction politics more pronounced in list systems? The big optical difference I suppose is that under constituency systems the risk that people vote on personality first and party/policy second is greater. If people vote for the local fixer, they don't really care whether the FG/Labour govt reduce taxes or increases spending via budget measures, so much as what your local guy can do for you.

By contrast, in a list where you vote for a party and that party decides who will be its leader, ministers, TDs etc, there is an even greater risk of give away budgets etc, no?

While that a list system might be better generally, does it prevent the kind of official vote buying exercises that we will probably see as the year progresses?

Cookie_Monster · 24-03-2015 11:04am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

By contrast, in a list where you vote for a party and that party decides who will be its leader, ministers, TDs etc, there is an even greater risk of give away budgets etc, no?

While that a list system might be better generally, does it prevent the kind of official vote buying exercises that we will probably see as the year progresses?

true but I still feel it would offer a little more at a lesser cost. At least you wouldn't be hung over a barrel by the likes of Healy-Rae.

In terms of the next election even though Ireland Inc seems to be doing better I still consider it unwise to reduce taxes or increase spending just for the sake of it. A couple of years either building reserves of paying off debt is whats required. The property mess is still in the background and any major shocks in the world economy have the possibility to topple the rather shaky house we still have.

petronius · 24-03-2015 2:05pm

Yes same old same old, the government will throw a few trinkets to their most loyal base hoping for a return in the ballot box.
Labour and government will be pressurised by the public service unions for a few euro more and blaming all the ills of the world on the previous government

For Reals · 24-03-2015 4:31pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Would there be anyone who would vote for the government if they specifically decided not to have a give away budget, but instead promised to keep working on balancing the books, getting Ireland back into the black and continuing to reduce the deficit in circumstances where we have curiously high growth (suggestive of another potential bubble)?

That's who I'd like to vote for.

I would prefer a more even keeled approach. Give aways are just that, agreed.
Slower turn around would ease any austerity. Sure, the quicker turnaround the better but there's quality of life to consider too.

For example, we have labour and Fine Gael. To me the logical approach would be a blending of ideology. A middle ground on all policies across the board. What we have is, 'you give us this and you can have that' kind of thing, which hasn't worked although it may appease some egos involved.

SeanW · 31-03-2015 4:38pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

While all of that is true, STV is also part of the problem IMO. A party list system would be far more suitable. Anything that removes the local influence would be a major step forward in breaking the cycle of voting for 'the local' doing you favours.

STV means even if you vote on pure principle for no1 you can still vote for a couple of good local boys as backup

The alternative is like the US, where you can't vote on pure principle no1 unless that politician has a real chance, so to avoid wasting your vote you straight to the "couple of good local boys"

STV prevents people from having to vote on the basis of "I voted for X only because Y is a prick."

johnnyskeleton · 31-03-2015 5:10pm

SeanW wrote: »

STV prevents people from having to vote on the basis of "I voted for X only because Y is a prick."

More specifically, it allows you to identify the least worst options in descending order.

We get the bland vanilla government that is least objectionable which is not great, but could be worse I suppose.

Kermit.de.frog · 04-04-2015 11:38pm

According to tomorrow's SB post the government may have as much as €2bn to play with in tax cuts and spending increases in the next budget, their last before the general election.

We have seen what this type of generosity has done to the country under FF in the not too distant past and the outcome of that.

However I would actually be in favour of giving strong stimulus like that to the economy as a once off this time around. It would inject much needed cash back in to the economy and kick growth on even more next year and people might actually see the benefit of recovery in their pockets in a more real way.

But we can not go back to wreckless economic management.

My opinion is the split between spending increases and tax cuts should be firmly in favour of the latter.

Any thoughts on how you think the government should handle the next budget all things considered?

Manach · 05-04-2015 12:05am

... well perhaps spending the money on core infrastructural items like dunno, water?

Simon2015 · 05-04-2015 12:10am

Sounds like FF all over again.

johnnyskeleton · 05-04-2015 12:49am

Thread from Irish Economy merged with this one as it is the same topic. If anyone has any particular views on the appropriate forum/sub forum, please PM me. Otherwise, I would propose to keep auction politics, giveaway budgets and general talk about budget 2016 submissions from various parties (especially the govt) in one thread and the Main forum seems like the most appropriate place.

Idbatterim · 14-04-2015 2:24pm

According to tomorrow's SB post the government may have as much as €2bn to play with in tax cuts and spending increases in the next budget, their last before the general election.

We have seen what this type of generosity has done to the country under FF in the not too distant past and the outcome of that.

Cut the marginal rate of income tax, spend the rest on debt reduction, infrastructure, housing and more teachers, SNA's, Gardai etc and on services for the genuinely vulnerable if it has been found that the cuts have been too damaging...

To hell with any unjustified welfare increases, that budget is already consuming far more than it should!

glacial_pace71 · 14-04-2015 9:13pm

Bear in mind the mentality of some of the current FG and Lab ministers. The FG/Lab/DL 'rainbow' of 1994-1997 kept to a policy of moderate cuts in tax and higher spending in key areas as economic growth permitted. They met all the Maastricht convergence criteria for EMU and so allowed the Central Bank of Ireland to keep cutting interest rates. It was sometimes incoherent (e.g. fiscal policy of budgetary constraints with a monetary policy that was pumping credit into the economy) but broadly was the right approach to take. They were trounced at the election by a Bertie-controlled FF, which proceeded to create a ridiculous inflationary boom with tax cuts that couldn't overcome the structural constraints of the economy (e.g. poor infrastructure, inadequate labour market activation measures etc etc) and that just saw the money frittered away on higher prices. Those same FG and Lab deputies are still scarred re the legends of what might have been, 1997-2002. Expect auction politics from their old guard.
The political culture of Ireland is somewhat like that of 1980s Somalia, e.g. the various henchmen loot and plunder everything for their own clansmen. It has always been thus: FG/Lab decry FF's decentralisation policy as an abandonment of spatial planning, but you could find a loot/plunder 'delivering for my constituents' vibe to a considerable amount of decisions made by any Government minister in any decade, e.g. FF would criticise FG's Lindsay Gaeltacht areas of the 1950s, in which large swathes of politically important territory were to be redesignated as Gaeltacht in order to harvest public money.
The most interesting element to the auction politics would be to see what SF have to offer FF or FG as a red line negotiating position, as at present much of SF policies are oriented towards stopping the various Socialist or Socialist Worker groups on the far left, but it's a curious sort of 'left' wing policy that involves opposition to taxes on unearned income (e.g. property taxes) etc.
The public will largely vote for the looting, marauding clansman, but if the public services are run like unresponsive colonial administrations (e.g. the HSE) then the humanising element sometimes does entail a Minister loading up the caravan with booty, (e.g. Reilly and north county Dublin when as health minister). I'd be more worried when I hear of Ministerial advisers talk of 'Year 1' issues versus 'Year 4' issues, i.e. they won't even pretend to govern for the country's long-term interests but instead everything is restricted to the current electoral cycle.

Berserker · 14-04-2015 10:25pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Considering buoyant exchequer returns, FG may be desperate enough to do it

I am not so sure. Removing those on lower incomes from the USC may be a waste in vote gathering terms because the hard left have peddled so much freebie nonsense to those in that income bracket that cutting the USC isn't going to be enough for FG to win back those votes. IF they can manage to magic up a way of cutting it totally, which I can't see happening then they will clean up when it comes to the centrist/middle and upper class voters.

Personally, I would like to see the USC kept in place, as it broadens our ridiculously narrow tax base somewhat and the €2bn be used in education, transportation and debt reduction.

Icepick · 15-04-2015 5:30pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Would there be anyone who would vote for the government if they specifically decided not to have a give away budget, but instead promised to keep working on balancing the books, getting Ireland back into the black and continuing to reduce the deficit in circumstances where we have curiously high growth (suggestive of another potential bubble)?

That's who I'd like to vote for.

you need a liberal party for that, not socialists and conservatives

Idbatterim · 15-04-2015 8:10pm

Would there be anyone who would vote for the government if they specifically decided not to have a give away budget, but instead promised to keep working on balancing the books, getting Ireland back into the black and continuing to reduce the deficit in circumstances where we have curiously high growth (suggestive of another potential bubble)?

I agree with the debt reduction, but I want them to target relief at those that deserve it, IMO working parents with kids and our elite on 34k plus paying 51% marginal rate...

possibly raise the minimum wage, this would be contentious, but maybe do it in Dublin only or have a higher one for Dublin, if the minimum wage is meant to provide a wage you can live on, why is it the same in Dublin, where the cost of living is higher and if you have to rent, is far higher?

The re-election auction has begun

Comments