The Minister for Finance, Mr Quinn, had a satisfied air about him yesterday; everyone's favourite uncle bringing presents. He declared that his Budget represented the biggest tax giveaway in the history of the State though it would more accurately be described as a tax give back. But otherwise, as a historic marker in fiscal policy, this Budget hardly makes the grade. Its provisions are neither imaginative nor inspiring. And in some respects they may prove to be dangerous.
Mr Quinn said that his Budget was designed to "promote social solidarity". If by that he means underpinning the Partnership 2000 agreement, fair enough. But this is sweeping language which should be used carefully. To promote social solidarity one has to significantly improve the incomes, in absolute terms not percentages, of the seriously disadvantaged; Mr Quinn has not done so. It also requires a major initiative to tackle long term unemployment which has been left largely untouched by this Government despite the economic boom. Mr Quinn offers none.
He talks of a Budget which offers "change, compassion and confidence". Tax handouts in an election year - hardly much change in that. An increase of 25p a week in the basic child allowance is that what he calls compassion? There is some hope - but hardly confidence among the Coalition parties that the carefully targeted tax cuts will deliver the votes (especially the middle class votes) come the election.
Mr Quinn, of course, had the broad thrust of the Budget foisted on him by the three Coalition party leaders in order that agreement could be secured on Partnership 2000. We may never know for sure if he really intended to hold the line on public spending and was stymied by his party leader. The bottom line however is that he has not brought spending under control as this Government promised. And as a consequence, borrowing will rise significantly this year and higher still next year. Not even a national debt of £30 billion, it seems, can diminish the urge to live now and let the next generation pay.
Mr Quinn's speech was articulate and his delivery cogent. He sounds and looks as if he is convinced by what he is saying. Would that the same could be said for Mr Charlie McCreevy. In fairness, he was constrained by the fact that much of the Budget owes its origins to Partnership 2000 and his party has decided to go along with that agreement. His was not an easy task but his reply was sadly lacking in eloquence and focus.
Mr Quinn declares categorically that this is not an election budget. One is tempted to smile. Mr McDowell has pointed to the convenient timing of Mr Quinn's late conversion to tax cuts. What is beyond dispute is that the Budget is an extremely expensive pitch to win approval for Partnership 2000. It disburses tax cuts on an incautious scale and there is a real risk that some £650 million may overheat the economy. If, in addition, it fails to secure agreement on Partnership 2000, the Coalition parties will go to the polls with a lot less confidence in their step and in a doubly dangerous scenario - no social consensus and with a seriously inflationary element loose in the economy. Happily for Mr Quinn and his allies it seems more likely than not, that yesterday's work will secure the support of the unions for the partnership plan.