Three quarters of us (73 per cent) feel the time has come to ease off on austerity measures and, come the budget, loosen the State's purse strings. Whether because of simple weariness, and perhaps selfishness, at the price we are paying personally for the crisis, or because many have been convinced by the argument that a stimulus is now the correct economic medicine, the latest Irish Times Ipsos/MRBI poll cannot tell us.
What is clear is that voters have internalised the numbers and the commentaries from economists, politicians and media alike that say the State is coming out of bad times and that there will be more to go around. Right or wrong economically, woe betide any government that does not heed that mood. Messrs Noonan and Howlin, your cards are marked.
That sense is strongest among those at the lower end of the social pile and among those between 25 and 34, having their first jobs, homes and children. The settled middle classes are less inclined to abandon what they see as fiscal rectitude – a third of professionals and Fine Gael supporters say no to loosening the purse strings, while only one in eight unskilled or unemployed workers or Sinn Féin supporters would agree.
The message to the Government from the poll is also much more specific than just “spend more” – more than twice as many respondents would prefer to see any easing of spending curbs go to income-raising measures (44 per cent) as would prioritise spending on services (21 per cent). And that 44 per cent rises to 62 per cent if we include in this category those who say that abolition of the local property tax and water charges is their top priority.
That political reality is hardly surprising – it’s human nature. Most people, across all ages and social classes, will prefer to see their own personal finances improved, whether through income tax relief, welfare increases or pension changes, rather than making a largely unspecific contribution to, say, health or education. But it poses real political difficulties to Ministers in challenged spending departments in fighting their corner, and between parties in government that see the spending versus tax cuts issue as a broader ideological difference.
Aggregating the types of government spending in this way, into income-raising and state-spending, also detracts from the interesting reality that exactly the same percentages – 14 to 15 per cent – would prioritise income tax cuts as would reductions/abolition of water charges, or increased spending on health.
Politicians are only too well aware that the same voters are just as likely to oppose every spending cut that the logic of their position may require. In a plebiscite or poll voters can be as inconsistent as they please. The people have spoken . . . but what did they say? Running a country, however, involves choosing.
