Higgins Vote Management - Labour keeping budget cuts quite until after polling day

CDfm

An interesting article in todays Indo

By Fionnan Sheahan Political Editor

Tuesday October 18 2011

THE Labour Party is avoiding a presidential election backlash against Michael D Higgins by keeping details of potential budget cuts under wraps until after polling day.
The IMF-EU bailout team is currently being briefed on proposed cuts to be inflicted next year.
But Public Spending Minister Brendan Howlin's much vaunted examination of all government spending won't be revealed to the public until well after the election. The Cabinet will decide today on when a number of key budgetary and economic reports will be published.
Fianna Fail last night accused the coalition of deliberately holding off on publishing the options for budget cuts until after polling day.
But the Department of Public Expenditure denied there was any such intention.
The move comes as candidates yesterday attempted to bring economic issues into the presidential campaign.
Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness said Mr Higgins represented a party that was imposing cuts on the people of Ireland.
Independent David Norris criticised the lack of support from the Government for homeowners struggling with mortgage debt.
Taxes
Labour ministers are also continuing to play down suggestions there is more pain than expected coming in the Budget.
Finance Minister Michael Noonan's assertion that more than €3.6bn in cuts and taxes will probably be needed has been repeatedly contradicted by Communications Minister Pat Rabbitte. Mr Howlin's Comprehensive Review of Expenditure is "substantially com- pleted", according to a Government spokesman.
Mr Howlin admits the "final Comprehensive Review of Expenditure has now been received from all Departments".
The minister's department said the review was being discussed with the Troika bailout team "in the context of the wider budgetary targets".
Yet there is still some question mark over when exactly the review will be published.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny declined yesterday to give a time for the publication of the review, merely saying it would be before the Budget.
Fianna Fail finance spokesman Michael McGrath said the Government was deliberately pushing the publication of material back until after the presidential election.
"It is well established internationally that such a process is enhanced by having the options out well in advance of a budget to allow for a public debate.
"But the Government seem determined to keep those options out of public view, until well after the election," he said.
- Fionnan Sheahan Political Editor

randylonghorn

Tbh I doubt if many people will be voting for Michael D on the basis of potential budget cuts. The Presidency has as much to do with fiscal policy as the Ombudsmans Office has to do with fishing policy.

We all know there will be more budget cuts coming, we even have some sense of the total amount, we just don't have the details yet.

We also know that it was FF who were primarily responsible (in terms of political parties) for dumping us in that mess; and we also know that neither FG nor Labour did much to curb them during that period. We also know that they haven't any magic wand to solve the situation now, as much as they might shout, and that there's more pain ahead.

We knew all this before the Presidential campaign started.

There will be people who vote for Michael D because they are lifelong Labour supporters, sure. But there will be many who will vote for him regardless of party because they will trust him to uphold the dignity of the office and to represent Ireland internationally with a certain dignity and intelligence, and in turn to welcome visitors to this shore warmly and hospitably. And, indeed, to undertake the more constitutional / legal duties of the office, restricted as they are, with a clear understanding of his duties in that regard.

This campaign has in general been terrible for the image of the country imho. So much muck-raking, so many skeletons in closets, so many people determined to drag them out ... or to make them up when they couldn't find any. So little sense of decorum or gravitas about so many of the candidates aspiring to an office which at least requires a strong element of both.

As if Ireland's image needed further tarnishing abroad!

In the end, I think that while many of the party stalwarts will vote along party lines (and that probably means that the FF vote will go to Gallagher), most of the "floating voters" will vote for the person rather than along the lines of either party allegiance or party policy ... and that imho opinion will mean that many of them will vote for Higgins at this stage.

CDfm

randylonghorn wrote: »

We also know that it was FF who were primarily responsible (in terms of political parties) for dumping us in that mess; and we also know that neither FG nor Labour did much to curb them during that period. We also know that they haven't any magic wand to solve the situation now, as much as they might shout, and that there's more pain ahead.

We knew all this before the Presidential campaign started..

Actually, what we knew according to John Bruton, former Taoiseach, was that the country is ruled by civil servants who use the Oireachtas to rubberstamp their rule

Former Taoiseach John Bruton made an interesting claim earlier this year, those civil servants effectively drove the policy themselves with the politicians merely the front-men who rubberstamped decisions. If so it raises questions as to why politicians don’t change that, or make the civil servants more accountable. How many top civil servants have been axed, for example, because of their failures of economic management, just as the Central Bank and Financial Regulator changed their top positions and the government ministers are about to be replaced, eventually?

Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/opinion/columnists/matt-cooper/our-overpaid-civil-servants-must-be-held-accountable-for-their-actions-166910.html#ixzz1b70sQ0qg

And,

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/civil-servants-run-this-country-says-bruton-2487668.html

So we dont know that.

There will be people who vote for Michael D because they are lifelong Labour supporters, sure. But there will be many who will vote for him regardless of party because they will trust him to uphold the dignity of the office and to represent Ireland internationally with a certain dignity and intelligence, and in turn to welcome visitors to this shore warmly and hospitably. And, indeed, to undertake the more constitutional / legal duties of the office, restricted as they are, with a clear understanding of his duties in that regard.

Isn't this the guy who is supposed to uphold our constitutional rights and look at things like legislation on stuff like extradition treaties and legislation affecting people (non money bills )etc and refer them to the Supreme Court to make them constitutionally compliant.

He is not a Ryan Air Hostess.

And, perform these functions independent of government.

He has the power not to disolve the Dail if the Coallition collapses and FG can form a minority government.

This campaign has in general been terrible for the image of the country imho. So much muck-raking, so many skeletons in closets, so many people determined to drag them out ... or to make them up when they couldn't find any. So little sense of decorum or gravitas about so many of the candidates aspiring to an office which at least requires a strong element of both.

A little more constitution is needed in our form of government and who elects the social partners to make and decide laws. They dont.

Higgins may well get elected for the reasons you outline but IMHO those are not the right reasons to elect him as president for the reasons I have outlined.

randylonghorn

CDfm wrote: »

So we dont know that.

While I have no doubt there is some truth in Bruton's assertions, I believe that this is often a convenient "out" for politicians who are disappointed not to have made more of a mark. Bruton would definitely strike me as one of those.

CDfm wrote: »

Isn't this the guy who is supposed to uphold our constitutional rights and look at things like legislation on stuff like extradition treaties and legislation affecting people (non money bills )etc and refer them to the Supreme Court to make them constitutionally compliant.

... for judicial review if there is a doubt as to their constitutionality.

Yes, and indeed I dealt with that part of the role:

And, indeed, to undertake the more constitutional / legal duties of the office, restricted as they are, with a clear understanding of his duties in that regard.

CDfm wrote: »

He is not a Ryan Air Hostess.

Very true.

But then, when have you ever met a Ryanair hostess who welcomed people warmly and hospitably? :pac:

CDfm wrote: »

And, perform these functions independent of government.

He has the power not to disolve the Dail if the Coallition collapses and FG can form a minority government.

Are you suggesting therefore that presidential candidates with party allegiances should be banned?

Or just those whose parties happen to be in government at the time?

CDfm wrote: »

A little more constitution is needed in our form of government and who elects the social partners to make and decide laws. They dont.

Relevance of the role of the social partners in the setting of government policy to the role of the President?

CDfm wrote: »

Higgins may well get elected for the reasons you outline but IMHO those are not the right reasons to elect him as president for the reasons I have outlined.

IMHO opinion you are wrong.

So, who is your preference for the role?

And what are the "right reasons" to elect someone as President?

And how does your preferred candidate match up to these "right reasons"?

CDfm

randylonghorn wrote: »

While I have no doubt there is some truth in Bruton's assertions, I believe that this is often a convenient "out" for politicians who are disappointed not to have made more of a mark. Bruton would definitely strike me as one of those.

I am not so sure, Bruton's analysis seems bang on.

The social partners phrase was raised again and again and it was a hallmark of Bertie's admimistration.

It is creeping back into common parlance at a fierce rate.

Lots of legislation is not debated in the Dail whatsoever. The most important financial decisions are driven by the Croke Park Agreement and that says it all does it not.

One would think Presidential elections is the time to debate constitutional issues.



.

But then, when have you ever met a Ryanair hostess who welcomed people warmly and hospitably? :pac:

I would rather not answer that.

More to the point who told you. :eek:

Are you suggesting therefore that presidential candidates with party allegiances should be banned?

Or just those whose parties happen to be in government at the time?

Relevance of the role of the social partners in the setting of government policy to the role of the President?

More so the slightly constitutional nature of our system of government.

IMHO opinion you are wrong.

Thats ok

So, who is your preference for the role?

I really haven't decided.

I am very disappointed with the choice.

I like Higgins but his foreign policy and political beliefs are not mine.

expectationlost

budget cuts are usually left to the budget

old hippy

I don't mind if they keep them quite but if they keep them quiet, that's another thing

CDfm

expectationlost wrote: »

budget cuts are usually left to the budget

In the UK after 9/11 there was a big to do over an email sent by a press handler advising then Labour Party Government Ministers that it was a good time to release bad news.

They could easily be accused of doing a Bertie.

Mr.Micro

CDfm wrote: »

In the UK after 9/11 there was a big to do over an email sent by a press handler advising then Labour Party Government Ministers that it was a good time to release bad news.

They could easily be accused of doing a Bertie.

What political party is going to shoot itself in the foot announcing budget cuts forced upon it by a previous disastrous Government, just before an election? A stupid naive one....does not happen in politics.

CDfm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

What political party is going to shoot itself in the foot announcing budget cuts forced upon it by a previous disastrous Government, just before an election? A stupid naive one....does not happen in politics.

Ahem, social partnership cleverly avoided.

All ruling political parties have legacies from previous governments but it is their own choice how honest they are.

nesf

I really cannot get over McGuinness saying Labour are imposing budget cuts on the people in Ireland while his own party is doing exactly that in the North while he was a Government Minister. Hoping people are completely ignorant of affairs in the North perhaps?

thebman

What has the budget got to do with the president?

Stheno

Bad news in the budget would potentially influence people's opinion of candidates based on their being a government party member?