Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Responding to the NDP
Read more about: Agriculture and Rural, Economy, Education, Environment, Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Health, Housing, Labour Party, National Development Plan, Transport
The interesting thing about the NDP is the hopefulness of it all. It is presented as the next phase of NDPs which is to build on the foundation of the 200-2006 model and expand infrastructure. It will now include social infrastructure also which is an essentail element. In the area of transport, we saw that toward the end of 2004, it appeared unlikely all the NDP commitments would be met. Transport 21 was introduced which put the NDP commitments together in another package running beyond 2006 and now the 2007-2013 uses Transport 21 as its basic model for transport spending.
The degree of overlap (which suggests that the planning for the 2000-2006 plan was slapdash at best) presents the 2007-2013 plan as continuation of ongoing commitments as much as new thinking on capital investment.
And here is where the whole project gets interesting. How does anyone respond to a government planning to spend €135 Billion on infrastructure we all agree is necesssary? More pointedly how does one do it without appearing spiteful. Therein lies the beauty of the NDP it is designed to gobbble up media attention for the coming weeks until such time as the Childrens Rights referendum comes along to preoccupy discussion.
That exceptionally cynical point is accompanied by the observation that the end of a 2006 plan required a new one in early 2007.
What of its impact on the election? Labour reckon its the longest election wish list in history (am I the only one who sees echoes of Micheal Foot’s 83 ’suicide letter’). I’m sure the electorate will agree. However the question is whether the high level of cynicism that greets these announcements will offset the goodwill of a major spending plan.
Critiques emerged thick and fast of the project, its composite elements are ripped from previous plans (Transport 21) and thus simply an extension of what failed to happen in the old plan (a metro for Dublin e.g.). The broadband commitment is not sufficient to pull this country up by the bootstraps. Same with health and same with schools.
The difficulty is making it stick. People don’t really care and government won’t give a critique credit. The beauty of the set piece.
The other option is to question the ability of the government to manage and implement large scale projects of this nature without haemmorhaging money. It is a solid option, plenty of evidence to back it up but the electorate usually dismiss it as ‘punch and judy politics’. Again the set piece moves to cut the options for opposition off.
Which is where the press come in. Some negative coverage in the Independent met with sceptical coverage in the Irish Times presents the major difficulty of having the plan effectively branded as recycled, inflationary and dangerous. This may well stick.
But it is hard to go against the plan being a good thing for the government, because at heart, its a decent enough ideal for the next eight years capital spend. Most parties would kill to be able to spend €135 Billion over eight years on capital infrastructure.The plan takes the major areas, throws money at them and viola!
And here finally is my problem. The issues in this country are borne of two primary causes. First there is a systematic underfunding which has until recently held back services and pushed the bar very low for quality of service. Secondly there are serious systematic, bureaucratic and structural reforms which aren’t even attempted in this plan. One simple example below (I know many of you dont trust local government but it can be reformed).
Example: Local housing and schools are two seperate pillars of this plan. Housing is zoned by a local government of part time councillors and a number of executives (county managers - primarily accountable to Dublin). School building plans are primarily a responsibility of Dept of Education in Dublin. Despite calls for years for a reform of local government and a rebalance of power to allow for integrated building plans with services provided in the area the NDP fails to address this. Money goes into schools after a critical mass of people have moved to a house with no facilities. This is extraordinarily bad practice unless Education keeps on top of all the devlopements around the country. The NDP does little to address this issue.
Finally, if Fine Gael and Labour come into power in June they may well have to follow and Fianna Fail spending plan and share the limelight on completion of those projects.
I am reminded of the prime time debate last year after the budget when Pat rabbitee was ripping into Brian Cowen about the budget. Pat was going on about this and that. And Cowen just went. What do you actually not like with this budget. And he couldn’t answer him. The parties are saying that it is an election stunt etc. Few are saying why this part or that part should not be done to make way for parts that should be done more of. That is just as big of an election stunt
I know many of you dont trust local government but it can be reformed)
I would very much doubt it could be reformed. Irish people are just to pally for local government.
I had a quick glance at the report itself and I found it shockingly vague and full of words like ‘enhance’ and ‘improve’ but nothing measureable about the enhancements or improvements.
Example page 26 :
“Older people - Continue to increase investment in community care services for older people, including home care packages and enhanced day care services to support them to live independently in the community for as long as possible.”
Increase by how much exactly, what is in the home care packages? what are the precise nature of the enhancements in the day care services? And why do the meeja not ask these questions? Because they can’t be arsed reading 265 pages of marketing talk.
The language of the report is aspiration. There are no measureable deliverables. I think a plan has to be more than (with all due respect Joss Whedon) just a stance of being proactive with pep.
I disagree simon, parties had two categories of press releases that i can see. the ususal crap outlined by you and a few more detailed ones on policy issues. the labour ones on health and education were quite good and fg on management of costs equally so. Still its not what gets picked up (media issue) and not what gets hammered home as it cant be soundbite-ised.
Local government is something for another post but the degree of bad behaviour is down to the complexion of the system as much as cllr behaviour but the reform of it requires accountability to be reformed with power.
Dan, good point sometimes you get so used to the aspirational language and it floats over your head. most of this stuff is rehashed (on the subject did you notice how many irish times articles on NDP this morning had ‘part of previously announced plan’ in the second paragraph) and as 2000-2006 showed possibly unachievable.
Being completely pedantic but shouldn’t the plan to cover the period 2007 to 2013 have been launched before 2007 started. Dear God, but we’ll be seeing the 2008 fashion on the cat walk inside of 4 months and then 2008 models of cars, but here we are 2 weeks into 2007 and the government is announcing what it is planning to do for this current year.
Cian I think you hiy the nail on the head with the point that it’s all money and no structural reforms. Everyone experiences the inefficiency of the public sector on a day to day basis but it’s hidden in the big numbers that get tossed around because the boom continues to fill the government coffers, removing any impetus for reform. There is another gap. We have the NDP giving the long term plan, and the budget doing the year to year numbers. But there’s nothing in between — no medium term mechanism that translates the NDP into the budget allocations from a multiyear perspective. We have a department of finance that can’t even forecast tax revenue a few months ahead correctly, and yet they’re ultimately in charge of a plan that calls for sustained spending over the next 6 years. No sense of what the corrective mechanisms are if things go wrong (e.g. costs rise faster than expected, revenue slower than expected, or project impact is unsatisfactory even if completed).
I doubt the NDP has money set aside for oversight accounting and cost control, though it needs it. Perhaps some cash to the C&AG with an active oversight role and more powers?
Your right P the systems required to roll out a plan like this are lacking. but civil service reform requires a commitment to government and quality government. When they wont decide what they will/wont do and instead fudge it that sort of perspective is a bit lacking.
Who will even contemplate reforming the Civil Service? They hold the power and dare anyone try to interfere.