IT HAS been an unsatisfactory election campaign. Most of the important questions have gone unanswered, but the result may not be at all bad: a hung
Dail. The questions left unanswered include the following:
1. How is it, given the economic boom, that even the left-wing parties are content to defer the elimination of poverty for to years?
2. Why do none of the parties promise (if not a basic income) that social welfare payments shall be kept in line at least with the rate of inflation plus the rate of economic growth (otherwise the poor will slip further behind)?
3. What conceivable justification is there for building 800 more prison places (let alone the 2,000 promised by Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats) at such an enormous capital (£88 million) and current (£28 million a year) cost when such expenditure in the ghettos of deprivation almost certainly would have a far greater impact on the levels of crime, as well as being more socially just?
4. What is the economic or social justification for reducing the higher tax rate (this is independently of the tax bands), given the scale of deprivation that still persists?
5. Why is it assumed that Ireland must join the European Single Currency in 1999, irrespective of the circumstances which might prevail in relation to our trade (including currency factors) with Britain (only the Progressive Democrats and the Green Party dissent from that consensus)?
6. Why is there now any ambiguity on abortion when all parties agreed before the last election and last abortion referendum (both held on the same day in November 1992) that if the substantive issue" in that referendum were defeated, the issue would be dealt with by legislation?
7. What is the legal advice which constrains the Minister for Health, Michael Noonan, from disclosing the full documentation in relation to the handing of the Brigid McCole hepatitis C case (he has said that there is a constitutional objection to his making this disclosure - what is it)?
8. Why did John Bruton tell the beef tribunal, when asked whether as leader he was made aware of financial contributions to his party: No. Now that is not to say that one might not, on a random basis, become aware of contributions that are made by particular individuals" when this was less than the full story?
9. Given that in one of its party political broadcasts, Fianna Fail made a prominent issue of the financial integrity of Bertie Ahern, why can't we be told more of the arrangements whereby Mr Ahern was supplied with living accommodation paid for by business people in his constituency?
10. Who in the course of the election campaign have been the major financial contributors to the political parties (the arrangement whereby we will be informed to whom the parties are in hock only after we have cast our votes makes a nonsense of the disclosure requirements)?
11. Why should we believe any of the promises of the political parties that have been in office since the last election when so many of the prom-made in 1992 were simply abandoned?
THAT last question deserves a little further elaboration. In the second paragraph of its 1992 manifesto, Fianna Fail promised to "maintain the value of the Irish pound". Within a few weeks, the promise was broken - the fact that it was a daft promise makes no difference to the point at issue.
Fianna Fail promised to establish a holding company to acquire funds to invest in job creation. It didn't do it. It promised to cut the higher rate of tax from 48 per cent. It didn't do it. It promised to legislate for the review of unduly lenient sentences. It didn't do it. It promised to legislate to confiscate gains made from criminal activity. It didn't do it. It promised to maintain the basic reliefs, such as mortgage interest and VHI. It didn't do it.
Fine Gael promised to cut employer PSRI by 50 per cent. It promised an extra £5,000 tax allowances for workers under 23 years of age, 80 per cent relief for mortgages of up to £40,000. It promised legislation to enable courts to award greater compensation to victims of crime. It delivered on none of these.
The Labour Party made several promises on which it didn't deliver. Spectacularly, it broke specific promises which it emblazoned in newspaper advertisements a few days before the election about maintaining the basic tax reliefs on mortgage interest and VHI payments - these advertisements were taken out to refute Fianna Fail "scare tactics" that it would reduce these tax reliefs if elected. In the event, the two parties went into government together and did precisely what one of them warned might happen and the other promised would not happen.
The election campaign, however, has sharpened the issues at stake somewhat, if only in the tone of the messages rather than the substance being communicated by the rival coalitions. The Rainbow coalition has presented a mildly progressive option - less radical than the Fine Gael "Just Society" plan of 1965 and the Garret FitzGerald programme for the 1981 election. Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats have presented a harsher image especially in relation to tax reductions for the rich and jails for the poor (although, to be fair, the Rainbow bankers a bit after that option as well).
THE best possible outcome would be a hung Dail with the next government being dependent on the support of the Green Party. The Greens are a good deal less daft than they were some years ago. Their influence on government would be progressive and positive but, ultimately, perhaps unstable. But don't knock political instability - the most stable government of the past 20 years was the worst government, that of 1977 to 1981. The best government arguably was the minority Fianna Fail government of 1987 to 1989.
The Greens would insist, one hopes, on a basic income which could help alleviate poverty and poverty traps within the lifetime of the next Dail. Their policies on crime would soften the harshness of the consensus on crime, as well as being more effective. They have sensible policies on energy taxes and on transport policies and they insist on a proper evaluation of the advantages of joining the EMU.
The Greens are also more committed than any of the establishment parties to the reform of the political system, notably reform of party political financing and on freedom of information. And, of course, they make sense on the environment.
They would be terrible in government but as an effective corrective of a government in power their influence would be progressive.
The likely alternative to a minority government supported by the Greens is another Fianna Fail-Labour administration and that wouldn't be so bad either. Besides, it would be delicious watching Labour get off the hook upon which Dick Spring has impaled the party.