The Labour party document, New Direction, New Priorities, is likely to be greeted with broad approval. Few would begrudge extra spending on health, education, childcare or the elderly - but only if the money spent translated into positive results. The notion of forgoing tax cuts could also be very contentious.
As Finance spokesperson Mr Derek McDowell put it: "Labour are offering an alternative choice to the Irish people. As an alternative to the approach of tax cuts and meagre investment in public services, we are offering worldclass public services in exchange for moderate and targeted tax reforms."
The problem is that the budgets for the Departments of Health and Education have been raised significantly in recent years, but there are still acute shortages of beds in hospitals, and schools are being threatened with a strike by discontented teachers.
The real problem for any administration trying to implement such a plan would be deliverability. As Labour leader Mr Ruari Quinn admitted when launching the document yesterday, the party has been calling for increases in public services spending for many years. The difference now, he says, is the money is there to do it.
The trade-off is a slowdown in tax cuts or possibly no further tax cuts in addition to those promised in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. Labour would use this money to exclude the first £200 of earned income from tax, but further cuts would be unlikely. This would amount to £500 million in tax cuts in 2001 and 2002 followed by £400 million a year in £2003 and 2004.
Many would argue that cutting taxes is necessary to encourage more workers back to the State and more women into the workforce.
The party argues that Government expenditure as a proportion of Gross National Product (GNP) is, at 39 per cent, behind many other European countries. In GDP terms, which is approximately the same as GNP for most other states, Sweden tops the league at 56.4 per cent, with Holland at 45.2 per cent.
Of course, as Fianna Fail pointed out yesterday, large public spending is not in itself a good yardstick. Public spending was at its most excessive when the Government was nearly bankrupt and unemployment was at its highest.
But according to Labour, the idea that cutting spending is a precondition for economic success no longer applies.
Neither scenario is wholly correct. The US performs extremely well with low levels of State support whereas many European economies have better public support and structures but are not growing as quickly. That is the political choice.
Overall, Labour proposes to spend an additional £3 billion over three years. That would increase day-to-day Government spending by as much as 15.4 per cent in 2001. The document assumes the Government will increase spending by 9.6 per cent this year and 7.8 per cent next year. Its plans would boost these figures by around 5 per cent to 15.4 per cent and 12.4 per cent respectively, falling to 9.1 per cent in 2003.
Forgoing tax cuts has implications for pay in both public and private sectors. Yesterday the party's finance spokesperson, Mr Derek McDowell, said corporate profits would have to bear some of the brunt of increased pay demands in the private sector. He admitted public sector pay increases would be needed but said these should be based on productivity and the reality of the ongoing benchmarking review.
Labour's catalogue of areas where the money could be usefully spent is long ranging. But the document lacks specifics, which it says will be gradually unveiled over the coming months.