ANALYSIS:The new Programme for Government has Green fingerprints all over it, writes HARRY McGEE
THIS FIANNA Fáil and Green Coalition has seen more life-or-death scrapes than the plot of an average James Bond movie. Once more, last weekend, it has managed – somehow – to survive against all the odds.
The latest chapter in the Government’s growing list of skin-of-the-teeth escapes has, judged by any yardstick, been a triumph for the Greens.
The party has been two years in office, were annihilated in the local elections, are hitched to the most unpopular administration in the history of the State, and are sponsoring a bank rescue plan that goes against the deepest instincts of many of its members.
Yet, not only did the party overwhelmingly endorse the new Programme for Government at its special convention on Saturday, its leadership also won a symbolically decisive victory when opponents of the National Assets Management Agency (Nama) within the party could muster only 31 per cent support.
Of course, the basis for this was the 40-page document that was presented to the membership on Saturday morning.
You could hardly remember a more complete flip-flop from the one agreed by the nascent Government partners in 2007. Back then, the programme read like the Fianna Fáil manifesto (which, essentially, it was) with a couple of sops thrown to the Greens, the principal one related to a 3 per cent annual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
At the time, one of the 2007 negotiators on behalf of the Greens, Dan Boyle gave a candid and accurate reflection of that document: “It’s not even a good document, but there are good elements,” he said.
Besides all the non-controversial joint elements (including the smart and green economy), the document on Saturday morning had deep Green hues. The health, social welfare, and macro-economic, sections – as well as the plan to make the GPO into the new Abbey Theatre by 2016 – were identifiably Fianna Fáil. Most of the rest of the document had Green fingerprints all over it.
The reason is simple: The situation has changed dramatically in two years. All those levees that were so carefully assembled by Bertie Ahern around his Coalition have been spectacularly breached since then.
The simple political reality that underlay the negotiations was the knowledge that Fianna Fáil needed to stay in Government more than the Greens did, although both faced electoral meltdown.
Fianna Fáil put its toughest and most obdurate operators into the talks yet the concessions given to the Greens were reminiscent in scale to those conceded by Albert Reynolds to Dick Spring’s Labour Party in late 1992.
During the talks, both parties tried to downplay the position paper that had been leaked to The Irish Times. But the spin that it was an “early draft” was bunkum. This was the template that was worked on, and on which the relative performance of both parties will be judged.
The Greens were able to produce significant “gains” to show to their members. They included smaller items – nonetheless of importance to its members – items like a phased-in ban on fur farming, more moves on extraordinary rendition, and caps on the volume of waste being sent to incineration.
Two of the areas – protecting education budgets and the ban on corporate donations – were the reason for the deadlock that prolonged the talks until Friday evening. And both elicited standing ovations when they were brought up during the debate at the RDS on Saturday.
They got nowhere with some of the key demands.
Notably, they gained no purchase when it came to universal health insurance or more fundamental political reform Nor is the document flaw free.
What may have been good for the Greens may be deeply unpopular with the wider electorate.
The sting in the tail of the document is the abolition of the PRSI ceiling from its current level of €51,000, and the introduction of a raft of new environmental taxes.
The middle classes may resent having to pay more taxes to fund Green commitments. Not everybody will share the party’s view that the continuance of free third-level education is good. Universities have big gaps in funding. And those involved at primary level say that it is here that funding must go if the injustices that derive from inequality of access to education in society are to be tackled.
Documents of this kind are also aspirational and this one is no different. “Shall be examined” is very far removed from “will be implemented”. And while the Greens point to gains, many are conditional or capable of being long-fingered.
Most of the electoral reform measures will require a new independent electoral commission to be established.
The ban on corporate donations isn’t quite that. However, the solution arrived at may reach the same end result. Contributions from businesses will have to be channelled into a fund to be shared between all parties depending on electoral strength. That seems to be an inane idea.
Some companies will baulk at the notion that a portion of their donation is going to Sinn Féin or smaller left-wing parties. You could not imagine any kind of take-up for a fund like this.
That said, there is no doubting that it was one of the better weeks in Government for the Greens. And, in truth, the foundations for this victory were laid long before the meeting and also, long before the party sat down to negotiate the document.
The leadership always knew that, given its increase in relative bargaining power, it could produce strong results in the programme.
Nama was the problem. Even with Green-induced amendments, there was strong internal dissent within the parties, capable in itself of derailing the Government.
The biggest master stroke for the leadership was its success in persuading the national executive council to express the Nama motion in the negative – to force those opposed to the bank rescue plan to garner 66 per cent of the vote.
In the event the strategy worked well for the leadership, who also proved smart enough when it came to news management. In the event it was a double victory.
An 84 per cent endorsement for the programme was impressive, given all the circumstances. And while most members opposed Nama and felt a gun had been placed to their head on this motion, very few voted tactically on the Nama issue.
The fact that the leadership got over 66 per cent support for Nama was also viewed as significant.Both parties realised a Government collapse would lead to electoral collapse for each party.
On the face of it, this was a victory for the Greens. But this document cannot be judged until it faces its first challenge from a hair-shirt budget in December and all the unpleasant challenges that still lie ahead.
Implementation is the name of the game. And nobody will know until this Government has run its course whether this document was “transformational” as the Greens claim or just another stay of execution.
Harry McGee is a member of The Irish Times political staff