On a trawl through last year's Fianna Fáil 2002 election literature this week - the way you do - one particular figure jumped out. Capital spending on health, to provide for new buildings, beds, equipment and so on, was to be increased by €1.102 billion in 2003, writes Mark Brennock
The point was made very clearly: "Manifesto Pledge - Health Strategy €1.102 billion" it said, under a column headed "2003".
Now after the events of recent weeks, people might be sceptical over whether such pledges were being met. A cynic might even think the Government had taken a big slice off this promised money, perhaps even cut it in half.
Well, a look at the Revised Estimates for 2003 shows that capital spending on health is estimated to rise by €7.3 million compared to the 2002 figure. This is just 0.66 per cent of what was promised.
The explanation given by Government for this and other "adjustments" is that revenue fell unexpectedly, so spending plans had to be reined in too. Even if you accept that a Cabinet which was discussing "adjustments" within days of returning to office was in a state of great surprise over the state of the public finances, cutting the health capital spending increase to less than a hundredth of what was promised is pretty breathtaking.
The health strategy published six months before the election promised €13 billion extra over 10 years, 3,000 additional hospital beds, an end to waiting lists in two years and so on. Asked if he was committed to funding it the Taoiseach said: "Yes. We are totally committed to the health strategy".
None of the targets are on course now. Back then it was all loadsamoney and extra beds. Now it's all value for money and reining in profligate administrators.
The Opposition has been attacking the Government over broken promises for months now. Labour regularly updates a document called Broken Words, Broken Promises listing those 2,000 extra gardaí, the deferral of promised child benefit increases, the non-delivery of the promised 200,000 extra medical cards, cuts in the house building programme, the surprise post-election cuts and new charges, and so on.
But the Government's change of direction amounts to more than a list of individual promises broken or surprise charges and cuts. Leaving aside specific measures, the broad thrust of the coalition parties' election message now appears to be being altered. The message was that they could hold down taxes, dramatically increase health spending, provide first-class European-style transport and infrastructure while refraining from significant borrowing.
They made much of how the opposition's plans would lead to borrowing. Neither Government party ruled out borrowing for capital investment, but suggested this would be minimal. Launching his party's manifesto, Michael McDowell said that Ireland must comply with the EU Stability and Growth Pact. This is the pact requiring EU member-states to keep their budgets as close to balance as possible, and threatening disciplinary measures against any state running a government deficit above 3 per cent of GDP. "The pact means keeping our General Government Balance close to balance or in surplus over the medium term," said Mr McDowell. The emphasis was his. It means little or no borrowing. He condemned "borrowing heavily" as a means of funding infrastructure.
Ms Harney was more specific. Labour's planned General Government Balance deficit of 1.1 per cent of GDP this year, rising to 1.6 per cent in the next few years, would be "in flagrant breach of the European Stability and Growth Pact". And while Fianna Fáil had their National Development Finance Agency that would solve everything, the PDs had a National Transformation Fund into which would flow the proceeds of privatisation and some Central Bank reserves, thus funding the necessary infrastructure. We don't hear much about how these bodies will transform the State now.
Then lo and behold, in an interview with this newspaper's economics editor, Cliff Taylor, last week, the Tánaiste bemoaned the state of the roads, the poor availability and cost of broadband communications and electricity which were, she said, a negative for some US companies, particularly those based in the west.
Guess what? The time had come to increase borrowing. "We are, in my view, under-borrowed," she said. "I do think it is sustainable to borrow for much-needed infrastructure."
She would not say how much should be borrowed, but referred to a recent study by a German institute which made the case for borrowing of up to 4 per cent of GDP in certain cases to fund infrastructure! This would require changes in the operation of the EU Stability and Growth Pact, she said, but so be it.
The Taoiseach was on the same theme this week. The Growth and Stability pact was "too regimented" and no leeway was given to countries with infrastructural deficits. They should be allowed go outside the terms of the pact.
Now this may well be a prudent thing to do. But back then the idea was cast as lunacy in order to paint the Opposition as reckless spendthrifts. Now Labour's plans seem modest compared to what seems to be under consideration.
This week's results of a Central Statistics Office survey of voter participation and abstention raised the question of how to persuade non-voters that it matters who they elect. If it turns out that those who they elect proceed in a different direction than they said they would, that task becomes very difficult.