In four days’ time a new government will commence its term in office. There is a firm commitment among all its constituent parts that it will remain in place until November 2029. With the comfortable majority it will enjoy, there is little reason to expect that not to be the case – although much can happen over five years.
Given the results of last November’s election, this government can fairly claim to represent the views of a majority of the electorate, who were unconvinced by arguments for radical change and nervous about Ireland’s vulnerabilities at a turbulent geopolitical moment. That does not necessarily mean it will set sail with winds of popular approval at its back.
The programme for government published this week is unlikely to spark much enthusiasm. High on aspiration but careful to emphasise that its objectives are subject to economic trends and external factors, it is painfully low on specifics.
The document proposes more forceful State intervention to address long-standing deficits in services and infrastructure that are now being exacerbated by economic and demographic trends. On some of these, like housing and health, it proposes a continuation of existing policies. That is hardly a surprise given the personnel involved and there is something to be said for continuity in these areas, although critics will argue that this falls well short of what is required.
Accents review: The late Eoin French’s remarkable music accompanies Emmet Kirwan’s fatherhood search
Trump is like the boy who got everything he wished for. What will he do with it?
Ardagh, Johnny Sexton’s new team, prepares to tackle disgruntled bondholders
Give yourself a winter glow-up with these four skincare saviours
One phrase that has emerged from those involved in the formation of this government to describe its approach is “common sense”. That can simply mean a pragmatic approach to problem-solving rooted in real-life experience. But common sense can sometimes be a gloss for conservatism and short-term thinking. It can elevate groupthink and recency bias over genuine strategic planning. And it can privilege the immediate problem at the expense of the important issue.
There are red flags in the government’s programme. Particularly glaring is the flat contradiction between its commitment to maintain existing climate targets for 2030 and the absence of any measures that would make those targets even slightly credible. On the contrary, proposals on agriculture and data centres make the chances of meeting those targets even more remote.
That shift is regrettable but hardly surprising from a coalition that has swapped out the Green Party for a group of independents who vociferously opposed that party’s policies. It is, however, also a symptom of a broader failure to address very real questions about the State’s capacity to tackle the challenges it faces in a timely and cost-effective manner. The last government conspicuously ignored the recommendations of expert commissions it had itself established on housing and taxation. The next one, it seems, will be similarly uninterested in structural reform. That would be a profound mistake.