The budget games are under way, right enough. Impending decisions about spending priorities for next year and into the future are now the unavoidable context of every political exchange – especially those within Government, some of which you’ll see, most of which you won’t. They are the subtext of every interview, news story and speech between now and October.
As ever, the management of expectations at the centre is essential at this stage. At the recent National Economic Dialogue Paschal Donohoe solemnly warned of deep uncertainty about the future and that (inconveniently) positive headline economic figures so far this year mask “considerable vulnerabilities”.
“The mood music is changing,” Donohoe warned. His party leader saw “dark clouds on the horizon”. For the Taoiseach, “challenging,” was the mot juste.
In the Dáil this week, Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers returned to the theme.
“We face significant economic uncertainty,” he said. “Everyone in this House needs to realise the level and degree of ... corporate risks that exists right now.”
As the Bert used to say during the late stage hubris of the Celtic Tiger, sure this is all cribbin’ and moanin’ and talkin’ down the country.
Still, you can see what they’re at. The country and its political system have become accustomed to massive giveaway budgets, and cannot contemplate restraint. Well, let me qualify that thought: everyone can contemplate restraint, just not for themselves.
Everyone has a demand for extra spending, sourced from the public purse. Some have a good case; all believe they deserve priority. Much of our media – especially RTÉ – is in the habit of promoting the causes of all comers relentlessly and uncritically. Of course, RTÉ might feel a special affinity with bodies looking for money from the Government. But still. Some context would not go amiss – how much would this cost? What is the existing budget? Where might the money come from? What should not be done in order to pay for this? What taxes should be increased?
The list of supplicants for greater public funding is literally unending. A casual glance at a political correspondent’s inbox gives a flavour of the requests bombarding the budget ministers: extra provision for education for people with disabilities; extra funding for school capitation; VAT cuts for the embattled hospitality industry; a €25 per week increase in welfare rates; this week’s cause celebre – retaining the €1,000 discount on fees for third level students; and so on, and so on.
[ The Irish Times view on college fees: Government has a choice to makeOpens in new window ]
Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan played a more subtle hand. Speaking at the Free Legal Advice Centre in Dublin, he said it was clear that Ireland has “a big problem” with domestic violence. He would like to provide more resources for Flac and for civil legal aid – but “I’m limited in terms of budget”.
He is getting to the heart of the entire question of budgeting: it’s all a question of priorities. Few people would quibble with increasing the budget for legal aid to ensure that people can have access to justice and to the protection of the law, when that question is taken in isolation. But governments cannot take any of these questions in isolation – they must weigh it all up as part of a coherent and credible whole of Government budgetary plan.
Within the justice budget, for example, how does that measure up as a priority against recruiting more gardaí? Or fixing the problem of prison overcrowding? Or supporting the victims of crime? Or rehabilitating young people who have fallen into criminality?
And how should the justice allocation be compared to the other budgets within Government? Should justice be constrained so that we can spend more money on health? On disabilities? On child poverty?
Not so simple now, is it? And, yes, you might want to do all these things. But you can’t. Anyone who pretends you can isn’t being straight. You have to choose.
Now let’s not feel too bad for Messers Donohoe and Chambers. It may be hard being in charge of budgets during a time of plenty, but it’s better than being Rachel Reeves. As the tears rolled down Reeves’ cheeks in the House of Commons on Wednesday, both sterling and the UK’s standing in the bond markets were headed in the same direction. Whatever the problems of prosperity that Jack and Paschal have to manage, they are far, far preferable to the other kind of problem, now facing Reeves and her prime minister.
Better to have surpluses than deficits. So you might think that an overriding national priority would be to maintain steady and stable public finances.
To do that, the budget ministers and the leaders of the Government parties have decided, they must eliminate the once-off giveaways of the last three budgets. “We can’t and we won’t” continue with them, Donohoe told Ivan Yates on Newstalk on Thursday.
But how firm is that determination? My sense is that Donohoe’s is rock solid. He is not, however, in charge of the Government. Both Simon Harris and Micheál Martin, while ruling out another goody basket of one-off giveaways, have insisted that they will also seek to help people with rising costs in the budget. Does this signal a middle ground will be found?
This week’s controversy over student fees shows just how hard it is to withdraw benefits to which voters have become accustomed. Does the Government have the political will and the capacity to restrain itself and take politically difficult but necessary decisions to position the country for future growth and to protect it against future adversity – or will we cross our fingers, plough on and hope for the best?
We’ll see. But I know one thing: the politics of no hard choices never, ever ends well.
