Some basic concepts......

kippy

Hi all,
I need some help here to visualise a few things. Please correct me if I am wrong on any of the points mentioned.
It is widely accepted that there are still circa 2 Million working in the country.
The budget deficit for this year appears to be circa 22 Billion.
The government need to "take" an extra circa 1050 Euro net from every working person in this country this year to claw back that full 22 billion (in one year).
From what I can see, that is what it boils down to. This can be done through the instruments they've used already, Pensions Levy and the ones they are going to be using in the next month, tax rises.
Obviously the higher earners can and should be a larger amount than the 1000 euro and the lower earners less.....
Right, that probably is an over simplistic view and only takes into account the people still working, but that is what they will eventually end up with after their 4 or five year plan.
Would people be that adverse to paying their part of 1000 over 4-5 years if energy prices continue to come down, the cost of food comes down, mortgage rates remain relatively static and the government are seen to be trying to stimulate private industry while cutting overspend in goverment services? I've obviously not gone near any of the social welfare related payments, theres no reason these couldnt be cut by small percentag if living costs reduce.
Is this far too simplistic? Each worker needs to "give" 1000 net to the government over 4-5 years or all in one go.
Perhaps a "government bond" is not such a bad idea after all.
Kippy

Time Magazine

kippy wrote: »

Hi all,
I need some help here to visualise a few things. Please correct me if I am wrong on any of the points mentioned.
It is widely accepted that there are still circa 2 Million working in the country.
The budget deficit for this year appears to be circa 22 Billion.
The government need to "take" an extra circa 1050 Euro net from every working person in this country this year to claw back that full 22 billion (in one year).

€10,000, not €1,000.

And that's going to be €10,000 every year until we make cuts/increase revenue.

kippy

The Economist wrote: »

€10,000, not €1,000.

And that's going to be €10,000 every year until we make cuts/increase revenue.

Ah yes....
I hate dealing in large figures. Feel free to lock topic. Tis completely pointless at that figure.
Kippy

Time Magazine

It's useful perhaps to give people an idea of the scale of the problem.

fasterkitten

kippy wrote:

Perhaps a "government bond" is not such a bad idea after all.

A government bond would just mean that they're tapping the Irish people for a loan instead of the international bond market. It will just add to the debt.

Automatic destabilisers ftw

nesf

kippy wrote: »

Ah yes....
I hate dealing in large figures. Feel free to lock topic. Tis completely pointless at that figure.
Kippy

No point in locking this, far from it it's indicative of how people haven't fully grasped the problem yet. It's not really their fault, it's bloody hard to get your head around a number like 22 billion in terms of what it means per worker unless you're used to working with numbers like these and even then the per capita figures can shock you. Similar to how most people don't really have a good mental picture of how far it is to the Sun from Earth.

Expressing it in terms of per worker is actually one of the best ways of getting it across to people. Another good way is expressing it as a fraction of the average wage (i.e. approx 1/3rd). Or per week, it's approx 192 Euro extra out of everyone's take home pay per week to close the deficit.

It's what makes many of us unsympathetic about the pension levy, given the scale of the problem cutting public pay is an unfortunate necessity, as it raising taxes and cutting welfare spending.

Économiste Monétaire

Just a quick note: Cut expenditure. Cut expenditure. Cut expenditure. Cut expenditure. Cut expenditure. This idea of covering the deficit with tax increases, which is being put forward by Labour from what I can see, is entirely stupid.

Look out: Mc's back in town

greatdane

how come the only things which went up in the feb exchequer was in non-voted expenditure.
08 09
Payments to Political Parties under the Electoral Acts…………1,368 1,428
Salaries, Pensions and Allowances...............................8,014 10,148

NDFA Act………………………………………...0200


cut expenditure is your man.....but for some reason this seems to be impossible to do

quad_red

Ten thousand euro extra per worker just to close the deficit.

<shakes head>

The turnaround is so incredible, it defies belies. Can it really be so recently that we lived in the never never say no to spending land?

Zynks

one third of the average national salary to cover JUST the deficit. Then the economy deteriorates because nobody can afford anything and are maxed out on personal debts. So more businesses close, more jobs lost, less taxes and then a larger deficit, so larger taxes....

Guys, I see what you are saying about cutting costs, I would focus on rationalising them and measuring the benefit each produces, but as it stands today the economy is just being chocked to death. We need money circulating in the economy, but taxation and cost cuttings are just unlikely to work.

I hate the idea of spending money you haven't made yet, but if we don't want to see the country dying the slow death, maybe that has to be considered....and hopefully under a government that is serious about boosting the economy.

cavedave

I tired working out how much money 22 billion was based on a 50 euro note being Their size is .140 x .077 x .00012 m and croke park pitch being
The pitch in Croke Park covers an area of 144.5 m x 88m
1032 50 euro notes long
1142 wide
so roughly a million 50 euro notes would fill croke park pitch.
http://www.oenb.at/en/rund_ums_geld/euro/banknoten/50euro/50_euro_banknote.jsp

but the figures are so big i keep making mistakes.

memo_to_all

Anyone see prime Time last night?
The aul lad from the Dept. of Finance just seemed to be sitting there hamds clasping his face in utter disbelief at what the panel were saying.
the talk centered around increasing Tax revenue as opposed to spending cuts...and it took this guy to declare that a total PRE-REQUISITE to increasing Taxes has to be a cut in spending.

The figures stood out clear as day...the Irish CS/PS is costing us in excess of €1000 per head of captia more than any other European nation is spending....but what beggers belief is that on top of this..other European countries have better services!!!

And he was dead right in the view that there should be NO PS/CS recruitment for the next 27 months NONE, NADA, ZIPPO and not one solitory cent in a pay increase. Natural attrition will bring down the wage bill.

But this is the good bit....I recall someone mentioning that the bankers were akin to commiting treason in what they have done to the economy...yet I had to listen to the likes of Jack O Conner make statements like "ISME are irelevent in todays economy"...ya reckon Jack!!
Then he went on to say construction firms that did not pay the National wage agreement should be barred from Public Tenders.....WTF!?!

The likes of this "Trade Unionist" and his ilk are the ones guilty of "National Treason"...how dare this man threaten the Nation with National Strike action at a time of an almost National Emergency.

P. Breathnach

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Just a quick note: Cut expenditure. Cut expenditure. Cut expenditure. Cut expenditure. Cut expenditure. This idea of covering the deficit with tax increases, which is being put forward by Labour from what I can see, is entirely stupid.

It's about equally stupid to try to do it entirely by cutting expenditure.

Économiste Monétaire

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's about equally stupid to try to do it entirely by cutting expenditure.

Ignoring that I never said what you're implying, why are they both equally stupid?

Carawaystick

The x amount per worker argument falls down when you remember that every resident pays an amount of tax - VAT, excise duty, betting tax, stamp duty on cheques,bank cards and credit cards, Tolls, etc.
Also Corporations pay tax, exploration companies pay (some) royalties

P. Breathnach

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Ignoring that I never said what you're implying, why are they both equally stupid?

Let's not ignore the fact that you never said what I seemed to be implying: I was simply reacting to your making a point in a way that was easy to misinterpret (I don't think you believe that our deficit could be dealt with solely by cutting expenditure).

Now to your question: first I'll quibble, and point out that I said about equally stupid. I didn't go so far as to weigh two broad strategies against one another. That would involve some work.

In economic terms, a package of expenditure cuts might have about the same effect as a package of tax increases. It depends on the configuration of each package. Or, with different components, the effect of one package might differ greatly from that of the other. Given the way Irish politics works, a package of expenditure cuts is likely to be poorly designed, with insufficient consideration of the impact on the economy of any measures adopted (I do not think that is reason to say that cuts should not be made).

On the other hand, the need for additional revenue is so great that taxation decisions might be almost entirely dominated by expected yield, so decisions on that side might be no better.

I'm thinking myself towards believing that the exchequer problem is so large and so urgent that questions of economic policy may be largely put aside. But then I ask myself: if we had no severe exchequer problem, what taxation and expenditure decisions might we make that would improve our situation? Are we all in a small boat being tossed about in a stormy ocean, hanging on and hoping for the best? Is there, in fact, anything much we can do?

Then I think of the general quality of our politicians, and my heart sinks further. I'm tightening my grip on the boat's safety rail.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In economic terms, a package of expenditure cuts might have about the same effect as a package of tax increases.

If and only if you assume that 100 Euro spent by the Exchequer is equivalent to 100 Euro in the hands of a private citizen. Theoretically it's a much more complex question than is first envisioned. Is there a negative, positive or no effect on economic output if the Government takes 100 Euro in as tax and then spends that 100 Euro on some project? Ignoring for the moment the social/public good aspect of the issue.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

If and only if you assume that 100 Euro spent by the Exchequer is equivalent to 100 Euro in the hands of a private citizen.

Yes. And it often is is more than just equivalent to €100 in the hands of a private citizen: it is in reality €100 in the hands of a private citizen. A very large percentage of government expenditure is in the form of wages & salaries. Yesterday the exchequer spent some money: it became my money. It's now in play in the economy (i.e. it's not stashed under the bed -- potential burglars, take note).

Theoretically it's a much more complex question than is first envisioned.

Yes, of course it is very complex. For example, cutting the government pay bill by reducing every public servant's pay by 10% would work very differently than doing so by laying off 10% of the people.

Is there a negative, positive or no effect on economic output if the Government takes 100 Euro in as tax and then spends that 100 Euro on some project? Ignoring for the moment the social/public good aspect of the issue.

That depends on the project. You can say that healthcare and education are economic goods supplied by the state, but many people do not seem to think in such terms. If the state did not provide them, then private citizens would -- but the amount and form of provision would almost certainly be very different.

silverharp

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes, of course it is very complex. For example, cutting the government pay bill by reducing every public servant's pay by 10% would work very differently than doing so by laying off 10% of the people.

I'd favour the second, if salaries are cut by10% the same inefficient practices continue, if 10% staff are cut along with some changes in policy you make the economy more efficient. but I'm not expecting any clever leadership, its everone for themselves

P. Breathnach

silverharp wrote: »

...if 10% staff are cut along with some changes in policy you make the economy more efficient...

Most of the inefficiencies in the public service are structural, and not particularly linked to the numbers employed.

One of the structural weaknesses is a likely inability to manage numbers reduction in a good way.

Should I mention that a 10% reduction in numbers would save the exchequer a good deal less than a 10% pay cut across the board?

ParkRunner

An idea I heard during the social partnership talks was to give civil servants the option of a 4 day week for the short term. In the long term it wouldn't resolve the inefficiencies but if we need cuts in expenditure now then a potential 20% (depending on numbers of uptake, if worse comes to worse enforce it) reduction in the public service pay bill could be achieved.

P. Breathnach

EF wrote: »

An idea I heard during the social partnership talks was to give civil servants the option of a 4 day week for the short term. In the long term it wouldn't resolve the inefficiencies but if we need cuts in expenditure now then a potential 20% (depending on numbers of uptake, if worse comes to worse enforce it) reduction in the public service pay bill could be achieved.

Civil service or public service? The civil service is a relatively small part of the public service, and the savings achievable would be relatively small.

In many areas a proposal like that is not workable. How would people feel about schools going onto a four-day week? Or cutting policing by 20%? Or closing the prisons for 20% of the time (perhaps let everybody out from noon on Saturday to 9.00pm on Sunday)? Or closing all hospitals for six days a month? Or giving the Dáil Monday off? Or restricting access to SW offices?

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes. And it often is is more than just equivalent to €100 in the hands of a private citizen: it is in reality €100 in the hands of a private citizen. A very large percentage of government expenditure is in the form of wages & salaries. Yesterday the exchequer spent some money: it became my money. It's now in play in the economy (i.e. it's not stashed under the bed -- potential burglars, take note).

Think of the problem this way, is the spending wasteful? Do we pay more people than we need to do a certain amount of work and so on. This will obviously vary from area to area in the civil service and Government spending in general etc. Do factions within the State, be they politicians, unions or whatever appropriate a share for themselves which doesn't benefit the public etc.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes, of course it is very complex. For example, cutting the government pay bill by reducing every public servant's pay by 10% would work very differently than doing so by laying off 10% of the people.

Indeed.

Godge

Traditionally, voluntary early retirement has been the method used to reduce public service numbers. In the late 80s, it was used to some effect.

The problem is it is very costly.

Example: A 50-year old civil servant takes early retirement on 1 January. He entered the civil service at 17. He gets 7 free added years giving him a full pension. The full pension means a lump sum of 1.5 times salary. When you add the pension costs (0.5 of salary) he doesn't work for the year but actually costs twice as much as a result (thankfully most wouldn't qualify for unemployment benefit or assistance). OK, in the second year the only cost is his pension so he costs half what he would have had be retained. It takes until the fourth year before the exchequer is up on the deal.

The obvious problem with this is that the public finances have gone over the cliff so we can't afford short-term pain for long-term gain. So we need a new method to get rid of public servants. Given the promises of security they have been given, why would anyone leave for a lesser deal??

And if you took away that security, how long before public servants shut the country down? Salary cuts, pension levies and tax increases will be imposed until such time as the figures allow us to reduce the size of the public service...but the OECD tells us we have a relatively small civil service....

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

Think of the problem this way, is the spending wasteful?

In the example I gave, definitely not! We're talking about my pension here.

More generally, I would say that the great bulk of exchequer spending is not inherently wasteful. There is a return on it of some sort. In times when the exchequer is under great pressure, it is right to re-evaluate -- to go beyond asking if something is value for money to asking if we have enough money to be able to achieve the value. I'm not a great fan of using household finance as a model for the management of the public finances, but in this case it might serve: a holiday package might represent great value, but if you are having trouble providing food and shelter for your family, then the holiday bargain may have to be passed up.

Do we pay more people than we need to do a certain amount of work and so on. This will obviously vary from area to area in the civil service and Government spending in general etc.

There is a strong case to be made for reviewing pay levels in the public service -- and it is not obvious to me that they should all be reduced, but I think there are areas where pay is higher than it needs to be. My approach would be to benchmark again. It was a defensible idea when incomes were rising (I'll abstain from the argument on how well it was implemented); it should be equally defensible when incomes are falling.

Do factions within the State, be they politicians, unions or whatever appropriate a share for themselves which doesn't benefit the public etc.

Does your granny suck eggs? Of course that happens. It's human nature; it's politics; it's interest groups doing what interest groups do. But it's not exclusively a public sector phenomenon: interest groups in the private sector also get advantage for their members. If we are concerned with justice rather than sectoral interests, all arrangements that confer unfair advantage should be tackled. That's a big ask.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In the example I gave, definitely not! We're talking about my pension here.

Pfft. Your generation left a whole lot of debt and bad policy for mine to clean up! The workhouse is too good for ye.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

More generally, I would say that the great bulk of exchequer spending is not inherently wasteful. There is a return on it of some sort. In times when the exchequer is under great pressure, it is right to re-evaluate -- to go beyond asking if something is value for money to asking if we have enough money to be able to achieve the value. I'm not a great fan of using household finance as a model for the management of the public finances, but in this case it might serve: a holiday package might represent great value, but if you are having trouble providing food and shelter for your family, then the holiday bargain may have to be passed up.

I'd go farther than that. The household has managed to run up credit card bills totalling 3 months income just paying for daily stuff and the banks don't want to give them any increases to the credit card limits. It needs to go on a starvation diet financially to get everything back in order.

I agree though, using the metaphor of household finance is a poor fit at best.



There is a strong case to be made for reviewing pay levels in the public service -- and it is not obvious to me that they should all be reduced, but I think there are areas where pay is higher than it needs to be. My approach would be to benchmark again. It was a defensible idea when incomes were rising (I'll abstain from the argument on how well it was implemented); it should be equally defensible when incomes are falling.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Does your granny suck eggs? Of course that happens. It's human nature; it's politics; it's interest groups doing what interest groups do. But it's not exclusively a public sector phenomenon: interest groups in the private sector also get advantage for their members. If we are concerned with justice rather than sectoral interests, all arrangements that confer unfair advantage should be tackled. That's a big ask.

Indeed, so should we not as a people in general favour cutting spending over raising taxes as a result?

silverharp

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Should I mention that a 10% reduction in numbers would save the exchequer a good deal less than a 10% pay cut across the board?

Le t me phrase it in a different way , the gov should at least try to reduce its role in the economy by 10% maybe more.

As an example say closing Bord Failte down completely? You would save more then the salaries as you would lose the foreign marketing etc. that they do.

I cant see that there is a huge difference between a household/company budget and running a country (maybe its the accountant in me:D) . For me its a simple question of what collectively can the country afford to do and if certain gov. activities just became out of reach , you cut them. You dont put your balance sheet at risk and you dont squeeze your taxpayers as they need to rebuild their balance sheets too.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

... should we not as a people in general favour cutting spending over raising taxes as a result?

Both are essential. The target should be to minimise the borrowing requirement as rapidly as that is achievable. So, to an extent, we should do what is possible as early as possible, and worry later about the best way to tidy things up.

Ascertaining what is possible is a political as well as an economic challenge. Through political processes, some sort of consensus should emerge on how we should bridge the gap. Our political processes, however, are not working well at the moment. That seems to be happening because all our parties are thrashing about trying to find the popular position (a politician's idea of "good" is not derived from a sense of ethics, but from a judgement of what the voters want). Our politicians have lost their moral compass because we, the people who might vote for them, are thrashing about and there is no discernible direction in which the mob is moving.

P. Breathnach

silverharp wrote: »

Le t me phrase it in a different way , the gov should at least try to reduce its role in the economy by 10% maybe more.

10% of what? And how did you arrive at that figure?

As an example say closing Bord Failte down completely? You would save more then the salaries as you would lose the foreign marketing etc. that they do.

Bord Fáilte is gone; we now have Fáilte Ireland. There is nothing much wrong with raising such questions, but they should be raised as questions rather than as answers. I don't know if our tourism promotion money is well spent (in fact, I'm quite sceptical) but I acknowledge that at least some of it might be effective. So, rather than chop it, I would challenge Fáilte Ireland to make a case for the continued existence of all its programmes; then I would be prepared to eliminate any elements that are not obviously yielding good returns.

And so on, for all government-funded programmes. I think I have just re-invented An Bórd Snip.

ionix5891

Im sorry i worked very hard over last few years

didnt gamble on horses/stock exchange/houses/etc

saved as much as possible for a rainy day and simply because things like buying a house without being a debt slave was an impossibility

why should I give the government €1 or €1000 or €10000 euro extra? the frackers do not deserve a cent for how this country was ran into a wall, and neither am i happy about my tax money being used to help bankers, when did they ever help us? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

P. Breathnach

ionix5891 wrote: »

...why should I give the government €1 or €1000 or €10000 euro extra? the frackers do not deserve a cent for how this country was ran into a wall, and neither am i happy about my tax money being used to help bankers, when did they ever help us? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

So, because you disapprove of what bankers did, you believe that the severe damage that our economy has suffered should become total destruction?

ionix5891

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So, because you disapprove of what bankers did, you believe that the severe damage that our economy has suffered should become total destruction?

let me see, speculators and builders with loads of houses have their assets deflating rapidly, serves them right

i dont see why my taxmoney (paid 15K for 2008) should be used to find the likes of Anglo Irish and rest, that money could have found a better home im sure

as for the public sector well tis too bloated, compared to rest of EU, they need to slim down whether they like it or not

we are in a period of readjustment, no amounts of money will stop this until things return to normal levels (e.g. houses at 3x income) just look at US they are pissing trillions against a wall and its not helping move the wall

silverharp

P. Breathnach wrote: »

10% of what? And how did you arrive at that figure?

10% of gov expenditure , Just picking up on the 10% paycut v reducing staff by 10% , which seem to be an arbitary number in any event. I'd prefer to see the gov step aside as it tends to be in the business of redistributing wealth (which costs) or running high cost companies eg RTE. the only way of regaining a competitive position is for the gov. to reduce its role in the economy by cutting taxes spending and borrowing.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Bord Fáilte is gone; we now have Fáilte Ireland. There is nothing much wrong with raising such questions, but they should be raised as questions rather than as answers. I don't know if our tourism promotion money is well spent (in fact, I'm quite sceptical) but I acknowledge that at least some of it might be effective. So, rather than chop it, I would challenge Fáilte Ireland to make a case for the continued existence of all its programmes; then I would be prepared to eliminate any elements that are not obviously yielding good returns.

And so on, for all government-funded programmes. I think I have just re-invented An Bórd Snip.

Its one thing introducing a zero based budgeting approach however I think the problem here is that unless you start of with rock solid economic principles, your sensible approach will get bogged down. Do you honestly think an organisation like Failte Ireland could come to the conclusion that net net it would be better for the economy if they closed up shop in the morning. its not an argument that they dont do anything positive, it comes down to your economic principles. Free market approach will say close it down , let the tourist industry orgainise their own association if they wish , whereas a big gov approach will say we must be involved in managing this industry and we will tax and spend as long as we can get away with it regardless if it works or not. You can look at numerous gov. organisations and policies in this light.

I'd have humoured this statist approach up until recently but now I see the whole apparatus as a threat. No country ever went broke with a balanced budget and low taxes. Personally I dont want to see anybody or any company bailed out at the risk of bringing the system down.

ionix5891

i have to agree with above

as a director and main employee of small company the choices that had to be made in last few months were tough

despite saving up reserves for a rainy day (oh how im glad that was done unlike other companies) the choices are stark

* continue as usual and be bankrupt in few months
* take a high interest loan but with the next 12 months being so uncertain the banks are reluctant to give and its not a good idea, i am a bit old fashioned and hate taking on loans
* cut the costs by a third and try to ride out this downturn by working harder and pursuing new revenue avenues

we went for the 3rd choice above
our hopes are not to even make a profit but to just breakeven :eek:


i dont see how the public sector cant cut their costs, they are already above average, just because they are in public sector doesn't have to mean they have a job for life and their wages will only ever go up

grr Ireland Teo is in a similar position that alot of companies are, just on a larger scale

P. Breathnach

silverharp wrote: »

Its one thing introducing a zero based budgeting approach however I think the problem here is that unless you start of with rock solid economic principles, your sensible approach will get bogged down. Do you honestly think an organisation like Failte Ireland could come to the conclusion that net net it would be better for the economy if they closed up shop in the morning.

It's rather easier to challenge what I say if you assume things that I never said. I never said that Fáilte Ireland should be be judge of whether or not they should continue: my reference to An Bórd Snip suggests otherwise. What I meant was that it is reasonable to consider a case for maintaining programmes before making a decision about continuing them or abolishing them. If some, or all, of Fáilte Ireland's programmes make a worthwhile contribution to the Irish economy, then it makes sense to continue them.

its not an argument that they dont do anything positive, it comes down to your economic principles. Free market approach will say close it down , let the tourist industry orgainise their own association if they wish , whereas a big gov approach will say we must be involved in managing this industry and we will tax and spend as long as we can get away with it regardless if it works or not. You can look at numerous gov. organisations and policies in this light.

There are a number of industry associations active in the Irish economy. I am not convinced that they serve us well. Many tend to be anti-competitive.

I'd have humoured this statist approach up until recently but now I see the whole apparatus as a threat. No country ever went broke with a balanced budget and low taxes. Personally I dont want to see anybody or any company bailed out at the risk of bringing the system down.

It is nonsense to demand a balanced budget in all circumstances. Sometimes a surplus should be the target, sometimes a deficit, sometimes balance. The exchequer should function (among other things) as a counter-cyclical mechanism.

Whether taxes should be low or high (within common-sense limits) is as much a cultural as an economic question.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

nesf

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah a fundamental point that many miss is that the US can get away with enormous deficit funded fiscal stimulus because the bond market lets them. No other country is given this kind of fiscal leeway.

silverharp

nesf wrote: »

Yeah a fundamental point that many miss is that the US can get away with enormous deficit funded fiscal stimulus because the bond market lets them. No other country is given this kind of fiscal leeway.

the question is for how long going forward? over the next few years I'd be looking for long bond prices to fall hard. They will be able to borrow but the rates will be up

1huge1

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Just a quick note: Cut expenditure. Cut expenditure. Cut expenditure. Cut expenditure. Cut expenditure. This idea of covering the deficit with tax increases, which is being put forward by Labour from what I can see, is entirely stupid.

Look out: Mc's back in town

I agree, thats the only reason why parties like Labour and Sinn Fein are gaining in the polls with their left wing idea's. Sure it pleases the unions and public sector workers but its not realistic and wont help anybody.