Inaction in the face of scandals: Question on alternatives less relevant

For many years, certainly since the collapse of 2008, any discussion about how our economy is managed, about how social justice and accountability might be made tenets of Government rather than occasional afterthoughts, invariably reaches the point where the performances of the conventional parties of power are questioned.

Their commitment to those ideals, despite grand manifesto after grand manifesto, is invariably dubious. That, in turn, leads to the defenders of convention playing the dog-eared card that has sustained them for generations and asking: “What is your alterative?” And so the circle remains unbroken.

That dynamic will enliven this week’s Tory conference when besieged prime minister Theresa May will try to repel the Borisistas and their determination to reject the kind of compromise — if that’s what is involved — needed to avert a hard Brexit. May may have a weak hand but she can point to the alternative in the hope that even her wildest colleagues understand how disastrous, and not just for Britain, a Johnson premiership would be.

That high drama will provide a distraction of sorts but we would be better off if we focus on some of the realities we were reminded of during events marking the tenth anniversary of the collapse.

The assertion by the former governor of the Central Bank Patrick Honohan, hardly a natural Marxist, that Irish banks operated a Ponzi scheme where they lent to developers to build homes — and borrowers to purchase them — led to the collapse of the economy covers well-harrowed ground. Mr Honohan was speaking at NUI Galway and offered an analysis of our banks and bankers that must cause blushes — even for those thick-skinned privateers. His address, and many others like it, remind us all that the vast majority of those involved in the Ponzi scheme — bankers, builders, and the professionals who supported them — faced no meaningful consequences other than a tax break that means banks will not pay tax on profits for many years to come.

What are your alternatives indeed?

If Mr Honohan poked a still festering sore, last week’s report from the Comptroller and Auditor General that many wealthy people are taxed at a rate below the average worker provoked deep anger and, sadly, justified cynicism. About 90 of the wealthiest people in the country pay income tax at a lower rate than the average taxpayer and 83 of those high net worth individuals — those with more than €50m in assets — declared taxable income of less than the average industrial wage, just over €36,500. To achieve this they needed the support, entirely legal support it must be assumed, of the very professionals so central to our 2008 collapse. The C&AG also highlighted scandalous waste of public funds when a new Department of Health headquarters was not used for 17 months but incurred a rent bill of €15.8m. In the real world, this would have ended several careers.

There is a certain weariness on these issues and that may render the “what’s your alternative?” question redundant. If the parties of convention are to avert that they must change more deeply and more quickly than they seem capable of.