Article From Labour Comment, July 2002
“. . . . I cannot save until I find somebody else who wants to spend. The notion that we could all save together is silly: the truth is that only a few well-off people who have more than they need can afford to provide for their future in this way; and they could not do it were there not others spending more than they possess. Peter must spend what Paul saves, or Paul’s savings will go rotten. Between the two nothing is saved. The nation as a whole must make its bread and eat it as it goes along. A nation which stopped working would be dead in a fortnight even if every man, woman, and child in it had houses and lands and a million of money in the savings bank. When you see the rich man’s wife (or anyone else’s wife) shaking her head over the thriftlessness of the poor because they do not all save, pity the lady’s ignorance; but do not irritate the poor by repeating her nonsense to them.” SHAW,“THE INTELLIGENT WOMAN’S GUIDE” 1928.
THE
LAND OF
MILK AND MONEY!
IT’S
A MOST DISTRESSFUL COUNTRY! WE HAVE SO MUCH MONEY AND SO FEW HOLES TO STASH
IT!
IN
THE LAND OF “POPULAR CAPITALISM”, OVER A MILLION PEOPLE HAVE JUST
INVESTED 12 BILLION EURO IN THE NEW GOVERNMENT SAVINGS SCHEME! THAT FIGURE IS
DOUBLE WHAT THE G8 SUMMIT PROPOSED AT CALGARY TO GIVE IN AID TO THE AFRICAN
COUNTRIES LAST MONTH.
Less
than three years ago, 400,000 small investors in what was described as “a
people response to a people’s issue” invested in Eircom. The value
of these shares have lost a third, but the Government earned 3.3 billion Euro
from the deal.
Last
month, we learned that we have one millionaire for every 525 citizens—15,000
millionaires in all, and this excludes real estate holdings!
Down
in the Kingdom, the Kerry Co-op is about to divvy up 6.4 million Kerry Group
shares to co-op members. That means that 1.5 billion Euro worth of Kerry Group
shares are held either by Kerry Co-op or a tightly-knit group of local shareholders,
mainly farmers who supply milk.
When
the Government Savings Account Scheme (Special Savings Incentive Account, SSIA)
deadline closed on 30th April, 2002, almost €120 million flowed into deposit-linked
special savings schemes, for the month of April alone, according to the Central
Bank.
This
was a fifth of the total €536 million Euro deposited in such schemes. The
funds attract a tax break worth 25 per cent of the deposit. The Government gives
a Euro on every four Euro you save.
Another
€500 million was invested in stock-market linked schemes.
The
Revenue have introduced a new SSIA tax rate of 23 per cent. This will only apply
to the interest you have earned on your savings, provided you remain in the
scheme for five years and make no withdrawals during that time.
It
is estimated that approx. 12 billion Euro will have been saved by the end of
the five-year savings scheme in 2007.
On
the basis that the Government pay out one Euro for every four Euro saved, the
cost of this initiative to the incoming Government will be something in the
region of €2.4 billion. This is almost two-thirds of the amount of capital
spending that will be required to modernise the health service, according to
the Fianna Fail election manifesto. It is almost exactly equivalent to the amount
of money that will be borrowed every year by the new Government and its Minister
for Finance, Mr. McCreevy. To put it another way: during the life of the new
Government one entire year’s borrowing requirement will go towards paying
for the interest in the SSIA scheme.
There
is a definite political thrust to the savings scheme—were the new Fianna
Fail/Progressive Democrat Government to retain office for the full term of five
years, the next election would coincide with the savings scheme payout!
The
expected spending spree when the one million account holders spend the bulk
of the €12 billion saved will result in a tax windfall of almost €2.5
billion Euro in VAT and other taxes, covering the entire cost of the investor-friendly
scheme, according to Government spokespersons.
This
will give the incoming Government in five years’ time an extra €2.5
billion to spend while giving a massive infusion to the Irish economy as a whole.
At
present, Ireland’s 1.2 million households, of 3.03 people in each, have
an average weekly household budget of €455.42, giving a weekly spend of
€546 million.
This
means that, at today’s prices, the economy will be exposed to a spending
spree equal to an extra five months’ spending, if, as anticipated, the
bulk of the money saved is spent by account holders.
According
to the Government spinners, wait for it, this will elevate the national feelgood
factor, just in time for the 2007 General Election. And who knows—FIFA
might defer the 2006 World Cup for another year!
The
Director of the Small Firms’ Association has warned that the scheme may
damage the Irish economy, claiming that the current falling exchequer returns
on VAT and the slowdown in car sales may be attributable to the scheme:—
“Over the duration of the scheme, over seven billion Euro will be removed from consumer spending and the Government must also budget to pay over one million Euro interest on deposits held in the scheme on maturity,” Mr. Delaney stated.
But
his old mate, McCreevy would argue that the SSIA makes a substantial contribution
in taking the heat out of the economy.
However,
some would argue that no sooner had McCreevy introduced the SSIAs to divert
consumer spending and slow down inflation, than the economy began to slow down
anyhow!
THE
BOYS OF THE SOUTH
Smart
Boyos In Cork Know Their SSIAs
blasted the headlines in the finance page of the Irish
Independent (2.3.2002). According to a survey carried out by Aberdeen
Asset Management in February, 2002:
“Munster has the greatest uptake of Special Savings Incentive Accounts to date.
“Connacht looks likely to have the lowest uptake by the April deadline.
“In this province there’s also the highest percentage of uncertainty over which type of account to open.
“Females are more likely to open a deposit account. Males are more likely to choose equity based accounts, as are the younger age bracket (18-24 years).”
The
Aberdeen survey predicted participation by 53 per cent of all adults, which
represented a dramatic drop on previous predictions. When the scheme closed
on 30th April, 2002, the total takeup was 40 per cent of the entire adult population,
well over a million people!
The
survey also shows a big move in favour of deposit accounts following recent
volatility on the shares market and the Eircom fiasco.
Among
others, trends highlighted by the survey were the consistent uptake across each
socio-economic group, except for the DEs (manual workers and unemployed).
The
most prominent group of SSIA holders were the self employed—particularly
farmers: farmer participants were 20 per cent above the median.
Middle
class savers match the average monthly premium and working class savers underperform
by nine per cent (i.e. they salt away €120 per month).
The
Irish
Life group also carried out a survey, they too discovered that
if there is a ‘quick
buck’ to be made, the Lords of the Land are in like a shot.
“They have enough savvy not to miss out on one of the greatest “freebies” in the history of the state—the Special Savings Incentive Account scheme” (Irish Independent 26.2.2002).
Farmers
with large holdings are among those groups most heavily invested in the scheme,
the Irish
Life survey showed.
So
too are the self-employed—proving that the pain of filing tax returns does
have compensations in providing at least a modicum of financial education.
The middle classes are on the SSIA moneyspinner as well and are prominent SSIA
holders.
However,
the rest of the population appears to be inexplicably reluctant to cash in on
the Government’s offer to top up everything you save by 25 per cent, according
to Irish
Life. This lot in Irish
Life want to read a bit of Shaw.
WOMEN
Estimates
from financial institutions show that approximately half of the new SSIA account
holders are women.
A
workmate explained to me how neatly the maximum SSIA monthly contribution coincides
with the monthly Child Benefit payment for a middle class family with two children.
The
maximum SSIA monthly contribution is €253.95. The monthly child benefit
is €117.60 per child—€235.20 for two children.
**********************************************************
“When you rob Peter to pay Paul : Paul never objects.”
**********************************************************
The
architect of the new savings scheme is the Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy.
In
November, 2000, Mr. McCreevy received the following bit of advice from his civil
servants: “Given the uncertain effectiveness
of tax incentives for savings, the potential cost and significant deadweight,
the provision of tax relief for capital investment in medium-term savings schemes
is not recommended.” (Irish
Times 6.5.2002).
So
what will the Government get in return? The simple answer is that nobody knows,
but what little research that is available indicates that benefits will be negligible.
The objective of the scheme was to encourage savings and in the process take
money out of circulation, with positive implications for Irish inflation which
at about 5% remains among the highest in Europe.
“Irish inflation is now more than twice the Eurozone average and is driven by domestic cost pressure.” (Irish Examiner 3.6.2002).
Documents
released under the Freedom of Information Act show that officials in
Mr. McCreevy’s Department have trawled high and low to see if incentivised
savings schemes actually boosted the national savings level. Their research
led to the conclusion quoted earlier.
They
found a comprehensive review carried out by the OECD in 1994 concluded: “There
is not clear evidence that the level of taxation generally affects the overall
level of household savings.”
They
also referred to a study by the Senate Committee on Taxation in the United States
which concluded: “Empirical investigations
on the responsiveness of personal savings to after-tax returns provide no conclusive
evidence.”
A third source cited by the research paper was the Institute of Fiscal Studies in the UK which concluded that:—
“…the degree to which schemes have succeeded in encouraging new savings or new savers is still an open question”.
“So despite being presented with an impressive array of evidence by his Government advisers, the Minister appears to have blundered on in his own inimitable style with a scheme that will cost the new government some €2.4 billion Euro it cannot afford and probably will not work.
“Even at the eleventh hour the Minister’s officials were sounding warnings. A hand-written note on a paper prepared for the Minister in February, 2001 sounded a cautious note. ‘This scheme could be very costly even on a limited take-up basis. You may wish to discuss measures to limit the cost escalating or to ensure we can close the scheme if the cost become unacceptable’, wrote the official. If such a discussion took place there appears little evidence that the advice was heeded.” (Irish Times 6.5.2002).
**********************************************************
“We have nothing to fear from our enemies without. It is the enemies within
we must fear.” C.J. HAUGHEY 23.11.1992.
**********************************************************
GET
UP AND FOLLOW CHARLIE?
The
term ‘real
Taoiseach’ is one that has been bandied around since 1979, shortly
after Charles Haughey succeeded in deposing Jack Lynch.
Ironically
enough, it was a mantra encouraged at the time by the “gang
of 22” who opposed Haughey, and who were the harbingers of today’s
Progressive Democrats, as they taunted Haughey.
But
the term ‘real
Taoiseach’, if it can be applied to a politician on the basis of
moment and influence without title, surely belongs to the P.D. ‘fifth
columnist’ in today’s Fianna Fail, Charlie McCreevy.
“Those close to him say that it would not cost him a thought to leave politics. They claim the corporate sector, even internationally, would snap him up as soon as he became free and that a whole new career awaits him in the outside world.
“‘I think the extent of his ambition politically is another stint at Finance’, according to one colleague. ‘I think he knows he won’t make Taoiseach, even if he wanted it. He knows there’s a certain type of popularity that goes with it and Charlie McCreevy is just not that kind of guy’.” (Sunday Business Post 2.12.2001).
“In that regard, he is the polar opposite of Bertie Ahern who would happily brief a lamp-post should the occasion demand it” (ibid.).
McCreevy
and the PDs are happy to let Bertie brief every lamp-post in Dublin, whilst
they get on with fulfilling their private sector agenda:—Tax Individualisation,
the most anti-family legislation ever introduced in Dail Eireann; the Dirty
Dozen social welfare cuts; the removal of tax on betting; the stand-off with
the Credit Unions; five budgets behind him which together see the greatest gulf
created between rich and poor in this country and, now the S.S.I.A. scheme.
Who
needs to be Taoiseach, with that sort of political clout! And a free hand for
another five budgets.
“He does not attend parliamentary party meetings very often, he is rarely present at the Order of Business in the Dail, the thrice-weekly bout of party political bloodsport that most ministers cannot resist coming in to have a gawk at; he attends few state functions…” (ibid.).
Elected
to the Dail in Lynch’s landslide victory of 1977, McCreevy demonstrated
his political colours almost immediately. The “liberal
who detests middle-class liberals” made his first media impact by
attacking George Colley on a proposal to impose a two per cent income levy on
farmers.
After
defending the levy at the party’s Ard Fheis, Colley later engaged in a
humiliating climbdown. His failure of nerve led to an immediate loss of authority
for Colley. The tax revolt by farmers was followed by massive protests by PAYE
workers, who took to the streets of Dublin in their tens of thousands to protest
at the inequitable burden of income tax.
McCreevy,
the liberal reformer wasn’t going to allow nonsense about tax equality
to impinge on the economic interests of his horsey supporters on the plains
of Kildare—that’s for sure!
**********************************************************
“An accountant by profession, he was outspoken in his belief in the need
of tough economic policies, but also held strong republican views and shared
the same sentiments as Sile de Valera.” (The Power Game by Stephen Collins,
O’Brien Press, 2000, p110).
**********************************************************
McCreevy was also a key player in Haughey’s overthrow of Lynch as leader of Fianna Fail in 1979:
“…Charlie McCreevy, who had played
such an important role in Haughey’s campaign was left out in the cold”
(p129, The
Power Game).
He
soon became critical of “Haughey’s
attitude to the economy”, in 1981 he lost the Fianna Fail whip and
for a time was an Independent T.D.
“McCreevy launched the second heave on Friday, Oct. 1, 1982 by putting down a motion of no confidence in Haughey.
“Disgraceful scenes marred the Haughey victory last night when former Minister, Jim Gibbons was punched outside Leinster House and Charlie McCreevy had to leave under Garda protection”, reported the Irish Independent political correspondent Chris Glennon.
“McCreevy was chased across the car park, kicked and jostled and called a ‘bastard’ and a ‘blueshirt’.
During
the 1990 Presidential Election, when so much opprobrium was showered on Haughey
for his ‘betrayal’
of Brian Lenihan, it is easily forgotten that Haughey did not act alone:
“Back in Dublin, Haughey was in consultation with P.J. Mara and McCreevy and they urged him to do the unthinkable—to sack Lenihan” (p204).
McCreevy
was firmly in the Reynolds camp when Charles Haughey was ousted in 1992.
PUBLIC
V PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
“It is widely rumoured that McCreevy and Minister for Public Enterprise Mary O’Rourke have a bad working relationship while remaining personally friendly.
“‘It’s a clash between someone [O’Rourke] who fundamentally supports state enterprise and someone [McCreevy] who supports free enterprise”, said one source. ‘If he had held that ministry, we’d have had a great deal more privatisation by now. Conceivably he would have got Aer Lingus into shape and floated off long before now’”.
Mary
O’Rourke can hardly have forgotten the role played by McCreevy in the humiliation
of her brother, Brian Lenihan in the 1990 Presidential Election, however, she
kept up appearances for the Dublin journalistic gang. If McCreevy is a political
‘hooligan’,
then Mrs. O’Rourke is the opposite: ‘a
lady in politics’. For a time she appeared to have the potential
to be in contention for the Fianna Fail leadership!
That
she was deliberately sacrificed in the May General Election, there is no doubt.
A similar fate was experienced by her brother, Brian Lenihan in Roscommon-Leitrim
in 1973.
The
talk is that she will become Cathaoirleach in the Seanad, receiving the nod
of Ahern. But if Ahern was half a man, he would do what Eamon de Valera did
in 1957, when in similar circumstances, Senator Sean Moylan was made Minister
for Agriculture. But would the PDs allow him?
McCreevy
is your ‘low
tax-low spend’ man. The ‘rising
tide raises all the boats’—if you have a boat.
“Charlie feels that the most effective way to help the underprivileged is to increase the pool of successful people so that they can pay the taxes to pay the poor”, said a colleague. “And he has done that; he has got people out of the poverty trap because he is genuinely someone who wants a balance between economic success and social progress” (Sunday Business Post 2.12.2001).
Ask the 15,000 millionaires for the answer to that one!
THE
PRIVATISATION OF FIANNA FAIL
October,
1982, heralded a turning point in the history of Fianna Fail. Notions of a ‘national
movement’ quickly disintegrated into another ‘just
another political party’. “…selfless
service to the state, the frugal lifestyle and the high ideals…”
were being replaced by the advocates and practitioners of power, privilege and
wealth. The accountant and his mind-set had arrived.
The
‘gang
of 22’ who voted against Haughey on 6th October, 1982, provided
the genesis of the element that formed the Progressive Democrats in December,
1985.
But
what is far more interesting, and seldom reflected on, are the ‘jibbers’
in that ‘gang
of 22’ who remained in Fianna Fail, and have acted as a veritable
‘fifth
column’ for their buddies in the PDs.
McCreevy,
the Minister for Finance is now the most prominent. Joe Walsh, the Minister
for Agriculture was another. Others were Seamus Brennan, former government Chief
Whip and now newly appointed Minister for Transport in the new Dail and Willie
O’Dea, the Limerick TD and Sunday Independent columnist, and now a Junior
minister in the Justice Department under the tutelage of his old school buddy,
Michael McDowell.
At
the Cabinet table, they are joined by the two P.D.s ‘Madam
IBEC’ Harney, Tanaiste and McDowell as Minister for Justice.
In
his book, The
Power Game, Stephen Collins, the Sunday
Tribune journalist, gives a very detailed and sympathetic outline of
the origins of the PDs. In early 1985—
“…Fianna Fail friends of O’Malley were also considering the option of a new political party. Seamus Brennan, the former Fianna Fail General Secretary who had been an anti-Haughey T.D. since 1981, Mary Harney and David Andrews were chief among them” (p160).
“An opinion poll was organised by Brennan and financed by Barra O Tuama, the Cork hotel owner and concert promoter.”
The
poll demonstrated encouraging prospects for a new party, with positive reaction
from “the AB social category and the large
farmers”.
The
Summer of 1985 came and “…Seamus Brennan
began to feel lukewarm about the project and eventually dropped out, apparently
more interested in pursuing his political career within Fianna Fail”
(ibid.).
However—
“Mary Harney remained a strong advocate of a new party. She was supported by another Fianna Fail T.D., Charlie McCreevy… and Paul MacKay who had been treasurer of the Fianna Fail organisation in Haughey’s constituency… O’Malley himself, however, still remained very reluctant to commit himself to the move” (p161).
A
crucial meeting of the conspirators took place in September, 1985 at the home
of Michael O’Leary in Wellington Road, Dublin. Yes, the O’Leary who
was leader of the Labour Party, flew the coop and joined Fine Gael. Some say
that Michael used boast that he was once a card carrying member of the Communist
Party of Ireland!
O’Leary
regularly met another Fine Gael cohort, Michael McDowell, in the Law Library
of the Four Courts, McDowell was Chairman of Garret FitzGerald’s Dublin
South-East constituency. Both were disillusioned and critical of the way the
FitzGerald Fine Gael/Labour Government operated.
“At the meeting besides O’Leary were O’Malley, Harney, McDowell, MacKay and McCreevy. O’Malley advised doing nothing about the project, at least for the moment. Showing his impatience at the delay and indecision, McCreevy told the others that if the party did not go ahead that night, he would have nothing more to do with it” (p161).
O’Malley
regarded McCreevy as “a bit reckless”,
especially after the three botched attempts to liquidate Haughey.
The
party was finally launched on 21st December, 1985. It had two TDs, O’Malley
and Harney. “There was a wide expectation,
both in Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats, that Dun Laoighaire F.F.
TD, David Andrews would switch parties and there were rumours about Seamus Brennan
from the neighbouring constituency” (p163).
In
the end, only Cork TD Pearse Wyse and Bobby Molloy, the Galway FF TD crossed
over. The rest sat tight and skulked and sulked behind Charles Haughey’s
back. The now discredited Michael Keating was the only Fine Gael TD to join
the new party.
“Michael O’Leary had been willing to join, but O’Malley thought this might give the impression that the PDs were simply a refuge for people who couldn’t find a home elsewhere. Despite the fact that he had been in on the planning of the new party, there was no room for him in it” (The Power Game Stephen Collins).
Michael
O’Leary has since been appointed a Judge.
“Of
the cabinet members, McCreevy is closest to Mary Harney, Brian Cowen and Jim
McDaid, although Harney would be his closest ally on the economic philosophy
front.
“He sees himself as a practical businessman who would like a few more around him”, said one colleague. “He would regard a lot of the dissent about some of his decisions as coming from people without any business experience” (Sunday Business Post 2.12.2001).
THE
FIANNA FAIL/PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT GOVERNMENTS
In
those coalitions with the Progressive Democrats, the ‘gang
of 22’ were always at the core of negotiations.
“A number of the T.D.s, particularly Joe Walsh and Charlie McCreevy of Fianna Fail, and Mary Harney of the P.D.s, also kept up contacts during the negotiations and helped to facilitate dialogue when the process ran into trouble” (p190).
One of
the major gains for Fianna Fail in the May General Election was the success
of their ‘second’
candidate in South-West Cork, Denis O’Donovan. It was the first time since
the foundation of Fianna Fail that the party gained two seats in this three
seat constituency—the old home of Michael Collins, which was exploited
for years by Fine Gael. Labour for decades had a ‘natural’
seat here through the Murphy family, but alas.
The present
writer, spent some time in the constituency prior to 17th May, and it was obvious
that Walsh had little interest in gaining a second seat for Fianna Fail. “Bertie’s
Boy” as the locals described Denis was on his own—it was more
“Charlie’s
Boy”—but O’Donovan made the historic breakthrough and
topped the poll, to boot.
Ahern
attempted to remove Joe Walsh from the cabinet, but outside interests such as
the Kerry Group and Dermot Desmond ensured his retaining the portfolio.
THE TWO GANGS OF ‘22’
OCTOBER
6, 1982: Tom Meaney, Joe Walsh, Pearse Wyse, Sean French, David Andrews, Sylvester
Barrett, Tom Bellew, Seamus Brennnan, Sean Byrne, Hugh Byrne, George Colley,
Padraig Faulkner, Tom Fitzpatrick, Jim Gibbons, Mary Harney, Charles McCreevy,
Bobby Molloy, Willie O’Dea, Martin O’Donoghue, Des O’Malley;
Hugh Conaghan and Ciaran Murphy.
NOVEMBER
11, 1991: David Andrews, Michael Barrett, Brian Cowan, Noel Dempsey, John Ellis,
Liam Fitzgerald, Padraig Flynn, Marie Geoghegan-Quinn, Brian Hillery, Liam Hyland,
Brendan Connolly, Tom Kitt, Liam Lawlor, Jimmy Leonard, Charlie McCreevy, M.J.
Nolan, Willie O’Dea, Sean Power, Albert Reynolds, Michael Smith, Noel Treacy
and Dan Wallace.
NEW
ZEALAND: A MODEL COUNTRY
WHEN
the Progressive Democrats were launched in December, 1985, New Zealand was held
up as a model of the PD aspiration towards economic rationalism.
What
a sorry state New Zealand ended up in! A couple of years ago, you could hardly
get down the main thoroughfares of their largest city, Auckland, with the sight,
smell and hum of small oil generators operating outside the main business premises
after the recently privatised N.Z. State Electricity service broke down, over
lack of maintenance by the new private consortiums, who hoped to make a major
financial killing!
“Madam
IBEC”,
the Tanaiste, should be reminded of this when she attempts to dispose of the
ESB. But it is probably the ESB workers who should be on their guard, and never
mind the ‘fool’s
gold’ which is on offer in the way of a shareholding. That’s
if the Trade Unions can differentiate between their national interest, and a
genuine shareholding in the ESB, or a “cop
it and hop it” short-term view!
But the
ultimate ‘coup
de grace’ for New Zealand’s economic rationalists came last
February, 2002, when the NZ Government-backed KIWIBANK opened the first seven
of its proposed 250 branches. Just imagine: opening a State Bank in this era
of ultimate market forces. In Ireland, we couldn’t ditch such institutions
fast enough, TSB, ACC and ICC.
Again,
the P.D. ‘hawk
in the F.F. holly’ McCreevy was the prime promoter—using the
revenue from such sales to underwrite his zero-tax policies for the rich!
“These new policies represent the beginning of an attempt to rescue the nation’s ailing economy, before New Zealand slips into Second or Third World status.” (News Weekly, Melbourne 23.2.2002.).
Many
people will be watching closely the performance of the new State Bank in New
Zealand. Its prospects look bright, although there are a number of hurdles to
overcome.
The new
bank is setting up a small number of branches initially, to test its systems
and procedures, before expanding its network in two or three months time.
The new
bank, underwritten by a NZ$78 million dollar Government investment last year,
is owned and operated by NZ Post. It effectively reverses a decision taken in
the late 1980s when the Labour Government’s Roger Douglas privatised the
government-run Bank of New Zealand, which subsequently became a subsidiary of
the National Australia Bank (NAB). In fact, the major private banks in New Zealand
are all subsidiaries of the four large Australian banks, ANZ, NAB, Commonwealth
and Westpac.
KIWIBANK
is to be New Zealand owned, have a national network, and provide lower fees
than the other major banks.
Other
independent commentators have been positive about the new bank. Massey University
lecturer, David Tripe, told the Dominion newspaper that the foundations of the
new bank’s operations came from the fact that they were operating out of
NZ Post premises, and had been able to use more modern technology, which enabled
it to process transactions more efficiently than its competitors. “People
who anticipate that the whole thing is going to turn to custard by election
time (July-Ed.) are unduly hopeful of
disaster”, he said.
The New Zealand Government’s initiative reverses the trend towards privatisation, which has been pursued relentlessly by governments in both Australia and New Zealand for almost 20 years by the likes of phoney labour leaders such as Douglas of N.Z. and Bob Hawke of Australia.
If you wish to subscribe to the Irish Political Review, Labour & Trade Union Review, Church & State or Problems Of Capitalism & Socialism please go to our secure sales area. Postal delivery is free within the European Union.