LABOUR has held office in this Dail for a bout 1,200 days. In itself that is not that very significant - except that this is also the period of office of the Fianna Fail PD coalition from July 1989 to November 1992.
Since Labour has become the exclusive target of PD rhetoric, notably from Mr Michael McDowell, it is perhaps worthwhile reviewing the comparative records over 1,200 days in office of the two minority partners in the successive coalition governments of this decade.
I doubt if any heading could be found that would give the PDs any claim to a superior performance. Even on their own chosen territory of fiscal management, their record in office is dismal.
Tax and public spending rose at a furious pace from 1990 to 1992, tax by a total of £61.4 billion, spending by £1.8 billion. The gross share of national wealth consumed by public spending is lower this year under a Labour Finance Minister than it was in 1992, the PDs' last year.
Despite this burst of tax and spend by the PDs, the growth in employment in those years was almost non existent. The live register actually grew by 47 for each day of Mr Des O'Malley's tenure of office as employment Minister, the equivalent of a Packard disaster every fortnight. The contrast with the jobs growth of recent years could not be more stark though obviously even - that is insufficient to meet the present demand for jobs.
Mr McDowell never ceases to refer to Ireland as a sick economy. By contrast, a remarkable series of foreign commentators in the Economist, the Observer and a major Swiss bank have highlighted the turnaround in economic achievement of recent years here. Clearly both can't be right. But why should such commentators, in journals of a distinct private enterprise bias, write in such glowing, almost embarrassing tones, if Michael McDowell is even remotely correct in his judgment?
I FIND it distinctly surprising, even disturbing, that Michael wants us to take our lead from his New Zealand heroine Ruth Richardson, whose notorious search and destroy missions on social services for children and the elderly were categorised by one of her own cabinet colleagues as the "scorched earth policies of the far right".
It is rather absurd that the PDs want us to look so far away for a model while distinguished foreign commentators are advising others turn to us and learn from Ireland's unique blend of "Asian growth rates and low European inflation"
Recently, Mary Harney and her colleagues outlined a package of tax measures which they claim will boost take home pay, reward work and create jobs without any need to cut existing spending programmes.
For this to have any credibility, Mary has to answer a straight question. She described the 1992 Budget as a "liberation for taxpayers". It contained some of the cuts in tax rates of the style she at present advocates. Yet it caused taxation to rise by £553 million (6.6 per cent), spending by £730 million (8 per cent) and it led to zero growth in the numbers at work.
Is the PD tax package a further dose of liberation for taxpayers on this style? This is the record based on the same kind of measures she proposes now. If they failed so dismally then, why should anyone believe they would work any better today?
The PDs pride themselves on their commitment to a liberal society. Their programme for Government with Fianna Fail accepted the need for progress in many areas of social reform. In their 1,200 days, I cannot recall any significant reform they managed to bring in to advance a liberal society. The landmark reform of that period was the Judicial Separation Act but this was a private Bill of Fine Gael's Alan Shatter.
Since 1993, Labour has managed to make major advances in this area in conjunction with both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. New laws on sexuality, family planning and information rights are all on the statute book. Of course the PD deputies supported all these initiatives but, as they voted, they could hardly have failed to wonder how they achieved little reform themselves in such a long time.
SO IS Ireland better off after 1,200 days of Labour sharing power than after 1,200 days of the PDs? Obviously only individual voters with different, often conflicting interests can answer this.
Certainly by election and opinion poll results don't show any dramatic conviction on the part of voters of the relevance of Labour's contribution. Glowing notices in the foreign press or a Swiss banking review, however encouraging, cut no mustard in a Dublin ballot box and it would be foolish to conjure up a feel good factor when one does not exist.
Consumer confidence is undoubtedly there as is evident in retail sales, car registrations and house prices. But alongside this is a gnawing insecurity and frustration that the boom has not led to the wholesale dismantling of the careful restraint and discipline exercised through national agreements for almost a decade.
Labour has everything to play for in the coming year. Look at the scale of President Clinton's defeat in the US mid term elections, yet there is every sign that he will achieve reelection have recast his programme to meet the criticisms of his electorate.
We can do likewise. It will need a change in style and a revised programme that can recreate the mood for change we represented so well in 1992. But first we have the right to match our balance sheet with that of our accusers.
Surely it would be worthwhile to ask some independent commentators to review the respective records under such headings as jobs, investment, inflation, economic growth, education health care, political progress, international standing.
No doubt such an assessment would highlight policy failures no less than the many successes Labour has achieved in office. But I'm certain the balance would distinctly demonstrate the vast superiority of Labour's record over the tawdry inheritance Ms Harney and her colleagues left behind at the end of 1992.
