Abolish Seanad

Enjoylife

donalh087 wrote: »

Or, indeed, the polls got it wrong....

That is a 'deviation' argument, in the realm of statistics.
Therefore, take that one up with Red-Sea polls.

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/170847255, is the document referred to in the utube clip, for your reference.

Did you read it, Donal, or did you rely on that which arrived through your letterbox?

View

roshje wrote: »

neither my TD nor my councillor asked me who i wanted in the Seanad so how is that democracy ? more like a dictatorship

That is democracy. No one says they have to ask you. They don't have to ask you who you want then to elect as Taoiseach or Ceann Comhairle either. They are free to elect Joe Higgins as Taoiseach on Monday morning if they are so inclined. Enda might be upset though.

View

ressem wrote: »

The closest we have is those people taking part in the constitutional convention that pop up a thread on boards (which is appreciated btw).

Well, I'd guess the chances of the constitutional convention's work going anywhere has just dropped markedly. I can't see the government being in any rush to risk losing another referendum.

Dannyboy83

infosys wrote: »

So people who disagree with your view in a political issue are immature and uneducated. So because I voted no, I'm immature and uneducated.

I don't believe you made a mistake because you choose differently to me;
I believe you made a mistake because you voted AGAINST reform.

If the vote were to give the Senate real, undeniable, concrete power or to scrap it, then I would be guilty of voting against reform.

But the Senate is, and now will continue to be, an expensive vestigial organ of the state.

I voted No because I strongly believe in a two tier parliament.

Which wasn't on offer...nor will it be.

The continued existence of the whip ensures that the Dail will act as a rubber stamp for Cabinet-based government.

The senate cannot enforce accountability and will clearly will not be given the power to do so when the Dail itself cannot hold the executive to account.

I voted no because I want two different house to vote on removing a judge or president from office.
I voted no because I believe the cost of the senate is worth it even for the little power it has.
I voted no because I believe that populist ideas can often be silly in the cold light of day. If I'm immature and uneducated because I voted no, I'm proud to be so.

It would be just fighting the battle after it's already lost if I were to respond or enquire why you feel the senate is worth it, so instead I thank you for you opinion and hope that by some miracle we can force those who hold the reins of power to relinquish some, not a great track record of this in Ireland, and
establish a genuine two-tier parliament.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

roshje wrote: »

infosys wrote: »

The government, is elected by TD's who are elected by the voting public. The Seanad is elected by councillors who are elected by the people, also by the Taoiseach, who is elected by the TD's who are elected by the people, and finally the University senators who are elected by the people who have degrees. But all elected like the goveenment byr the people.[/QUOTE
neither my TD nor my councillor asked me who i wanted in the Seanad so how is that democracy ? more like a dictatorship

You elected them to make decisions, do they call to your door asking which road they should repair and which pothole they should fill? No they don't because you passed that power to them in a democratic election in the same way you passed to them the choice of which potential Senator they should vote for.

Dannyboy83

ressem wrote: »

The great thing for commentators about having 2 referendums on the same day that go opposite ways is that we have a basis to reject statements like this.

The government seemed able to convince (with very little effort) a substantial portion of the electorate that the appeals court had value, at an added cost of 3 million or so per year. That suggests that they were available to be convinced by the Seanad removal argument.

Perhaps the arguments put to the public to support a yes were considered to be unconvincing?

Perhaps, but bear in mind that Fine Gael ran with the idea of scrapping the senate in their mandate and they won by a landslide victory.

Of course, they also ran with the idea of making Irish optional at Leaving Cert, but we failed to see reform there also.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of what has actually changed since FF left office and the coalition entered.

plus ça change...

roshje

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

roshje wrote: »

You elected them to make decisions, do they call to your door asking which road they should repair and which pothole they should fill? No they don't because you passed that power to them in a democratic election in the same way you passed to them the choice of which potential Senator they should vote for.

you see it one way i see it another way, its a proxy vote for a talk shop

donalh087

Enjoylife wrote: »

That is a 'deviation' argument, in the realm of statistics.
Therefore, take that one up with Red-Sea polls.

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/170847255, is the document referred to in the utube clip, for your reference.

Did you read it, Donal, or did you rely on that which arrived through your letterbox?

Now now, no need to get nasty.

There were three polls in the last week and they all, broadly, gave 60/40 in favour of a yes vote. However, all three also claimed that 90% of people interviewed said they would vote. Clearly this did not happen. Clearly, again, the polls got this wrong. I don't think a huge number of people changed their mind in the last few days.

ressem

View wrote: »

Well, I'd guess the chances of the constitutional convention's work going anywhere has just dropped markedly. I can't see the government being in any rush to risk losing another referendum.

That's fine. Lets see them get the Dail and preferably also the Seanad working to the extent permitted by the constitution.

An off the top of the head notion would be that they...
Draft out the workflows for considering
money bills,
legislation of internal origin,
legislation of EU origin,

and how much time for consideration by the opposition to provide amendments.

They have this convention, the dail reform plan and the previous fairly conservative government + seanad reform plan + Zapone / Crown to pick and mix from.

And while waiting for the Dail to do it's bit, I intend to see whether it is possible to get any say in the Seanad nomination choice for my industry because the board damn well shouldn't be just throwing it to some FF councillor, even if there is no standout candidate with actual "knowledge and experience of the industry".
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/nominating_bodies/20130325.pdf

Harry Angstrom

It makes me laugh to hear some people going on about all these "powers" that the Seanad is theoretically supposed to have, when the fact of the matter is that it has only exercised these powers once in a very blue moon, given that the Government party of the day will always hold the balance of power. It was a cynical move by the senators in recent months to finally realise they had a quasi independent voice, but I'm sure they'll go back to the same old same old now that the stinking rotten crony house of wasters has been allowed to continue by a highly gullible electorate.

zenno

ressem wrote: »

Afraid not. Any change to the constitution has to be using a referendum not a multichoice preferendum.

Otherwise the government doesn't have a history of asking the public anything.
The closest we have is those people taking part in the constitutional convention that pop up a thread on boards (which is appreciated btw).

The government by way of defending legislation often quotes those independent polls as though they were an accurate reflection on public opinion.
So it's funny when both they and Paddy Power get it so badly wrong. (9/1 for a No? Someone's laughing).

OK, if there is another referendum on the Seanad, then the government can still give two options...Reform or abolish, problem solved and not multiple-choice.

Well, if it was voted yes earlier today to abolish the Seanad then that would be the end of it with it's head chopped off and done for, but with the no-vote, it at least gives options regarding a reform from government and the Irish people.

You can't reform something of which is dead.

jman0war

"Seanad Reform" is not part of the Programme for Government, therefore it will not happen.
Maybe after the next general election one of the parties will offer it, who knows.
But the given the track record of Seanad Reform, it looks like wishful thinking to me.

The people that voted No, voted to maintain the Status Quo.

Pro Hoc Vice

jman0war wrote: »

"Seanad Reform" is not part of the Programme for Government, therefore it will not happen.
Maybe after the next general election one of the parties will offer it, who knows.
But the given the track record of Seanad Reform, it looks like wishful thinking to me.

The people that voted No, voted to maintain the Status Quo.

Yes that is what I voted for, my view for years has been I want a strong independent Seanad, so my preferred options are 1 a reformed Seanad, 2 the status quo, I do not like the 3rd option at all, as its in my opinion bad for proper Government.

Sierra Oscar

jman0war wrote: »

"Seanad Reform" is not part of the Programme for Government, therefore it will not happen.

I wouldn't be so sure of that, the Taoiseach himself pretty much conceded yesterday that reform must now take place. There is a general consensus that it cannot continue in the manner that it currently operates.

It will be an own goal for FG if they allow FF & SF to put forward Seanad reform in their next election manifestos without FG having done much to reform the house itself despite the referendum result.

This referendum result has also given the Senators themselves a greater platform to call for reform.

aloyisious

So long as there's enough senior senators to block any attempt to "Dail-ize" the Seanad in any reformation plans, so it could end up with some form of "whip" being introduced, disrupting free thinking there. I'd imagine that that would be a secret desire in most party leaders hearts, to "corral" the senators.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

Results.

Original Seanad map had errors. Revised map here: https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/2160/275139.PNG

Dannyboy83

http://www.thejournal.ie/enda-kenny-party-whip-fine-gael-five-a-side-1120758-Oct2013/?utm_source=facebook_short
“One cannot have instability”: Taoiseach rules out loosening the party whip

Well, there goes the senate reform.

Can we have a rerun like we do with all the EU referenda and scrap it?

An Coilean

zenno wrote: »

OK, if there is another referendum on the Seanad, then the government can still give two options...Reform or abolish, problem solved and not multiple-choice.

You can't do that, no matter which way people voted, the constitution would be changed. You have to have one of the options being to not change the constitution.

Like it or not, abolition has been rejected, any referendum on the seanad in the near future will have to be 'making x,y, and z change to the constitution to reform the seanad or leave it the way it is'.

PRAF

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Well, there goes the senate reform.

Can we have a rerun like we do with all the EU referenda and scrap it?

Was that article not talking about the use of the whip system in the Dail? What is the link to the Seanad?

Disappointing that Enda doesn't see the need for any change to the current whip system. There seems to be a rising upswell in support for at least some relaxation of the system.

Funnily enough, I don't hear those champions of "reform" in FF calling for a change of the whip system.

raymon

PRAF wrote: »

Was that article not talking about the use of the whip system in the Dail? What is the link to the Seanad?

Disappointing that Enda doesn't see the need for any change to the current whip system. There seems to be a rising upswell in support for at least some relaxation of the system.

Funnily enough, I don't hear those champions of "reform" in FF calling for a change of the whip system.

Willie ( come here till I tell you a lie) o Dea was arguing for relaxation of the whip system on VB last night.

Was hard to know if he was telling more lies.

PRAF

raymon wrote: »

Willie ( come here till I tell you a lie) o Dea was arguing for relaxation of the whip system on VB last night.

Great, he's a pretty influential guy in FF. Lets see if he can convince the FF party to change their internal whip system. They can then be a shining example to show the other parties how to do it.

Or, Willie could seek to setup an all party committee or raise a private members bill to limit / curb the ability of political parties to apply the whip system in the Dail.

We live in hope....

micosoft

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure of that, the Taoiseach himself pretty much conceded yesterday that reform must now take place. There is a general consensus that it cannot continue in the manner that it currently operates..

I also listened to him and some of the others such as Bruton. They committed to nothing and said reform needed to be looked at; and they needed to say this to avoid looking petulant on the day. I suspect the Govt. will go very quiet on it for the next couple of weeks and wait for the next scandal (Gerry Adams will do nicely) to blow over. It's not on their programme.

On the other hand it will be interesting to see if the Senators themselves come up with a coherent plan to reform the Seaned. They whinged enough about it during the campaign - it's really up to the Senators and not the Govt. which clearly thought no meaningful reform was possible. And turning the Seaned into a Mini Dail or creating a gridlock system US style is not good reform.

And also up to FF to scratch out the abolish the Seaned line in their manifesto and replace it with what they think is, presuming of course it was not a cynical ploy....

An Coilean

micosoft wrote: »

I also listened to him and some of the others such as Bruton. They committed to nothing and said reform needed to be looked at; and they needed to say this to avoid looking petulant on the day. I suspect the Govt. will go very quiet on it for the next couple of weeks and wait for the next scandal (Gerry Adams will do nicely) to blow over. It's not on their programme.

I'm sure they would love for it to just quietly go away, but they dragged the issue into the middle of the public arena. Campaign groups that were formed to work for a No vote during the referendum have not gone away. People like the TD's in the 'reform group' are still there and still more than happy to make noise about the issue, its a stick that the opposition wont get tired of beating the government with and you can be sure the media wont be letting them off the hook for it either. The Government said far too much about the seanad and how bad it currently is to not be damaged by doing noting about it.

At the end of the day, there are plenty of people in FG who had no interest in Seanad abolition and who actually want to see it reformed, there is nothing to be gained from not doing it except flack from the opposition and the media while reforming it won't damage them in any way.
Aside from sour grapes, there is really no reason for them to not do it.

On the other hand it will be interesting to see if the Senators themselves come up with a coherent plan to reform the Seaned. They whinged enough about it during the campaign - it's really up to the Senators and not the Govt. which clearly thought no meaningful reform was possible. And turning the Seaned into a Mini Dail or creating a gridlock system US style is not good reform.

They already have, Quinn/Zappone and Crown bills are already there, either would make a solid basis for reform legislation with ammendments at committee stage.

Mr.Micro

raymon wrote: »

Willie ( come here till I tell you a lie) o Dea was arguing for relaxation of the whip system on VB last night.

Was hard to know if he was telling more lies.

Which Willie was it.... he looks like somebody from a pantomime. He was just on about relaxation, because it costs him nothing, and looks good on TV. The reality is FF would no more adapt relaxation than FG.

PRAF

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Which Willie was it.... he looks like somebody from a pantomime. He was just on about relaxation, because it costs him nothing, and looks good on TV. The reality is FF would no more adapt relaxation than FG.

Corrent, actually none of the parties seem to be in favour of it. I don't think it was in any party's pre election manifesto and apart from Willie (who has zero credibility IMO) I haven't heard many politicians talking about it either.

An Coilean

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Which Willie was it.... he looks like somebody from a pantomime. He was just on about relaxation, because it costs him nothing, and looks good on TV. The reality is FF would no more adapt relaxation than FG.

Well actually FF have been making noises about relaxing the whip system interally and allowing more votes of conscience etc. Very much making a virtue out of necessity after the abortion bill but it has happened and may happen more often in the future.

At the end of the day, it doesnt really make sence for them to have to go to the hassle of throwing someone out of the party if they cant support the Government on every little minor issue as long as they can toe the line on the important issues like the budget and votes of confidence etc. They have a more sofisticated system in other countries and it works well enough, it makes sense that there would be a desire to change the whip system to some degree to make unnecessary the kind of wrangeling needed to keep everyone on board on every issue and prevent a governments majority being erroded from people going overboard.

The current government can afford to be strict on the whip and loose members now and again due to the fact that they have such a larg majority, but that won't always be the case.

PRAF

An Coilean wrote: »

Well actually FF have been making noises about relaxing the whip system interally and allowing more votes of conscience etc. Very much making a virtue out of necessity after the abortion bill but it has happened and may happen more often in the future.

At the end of the day, it doesnt really make sence for them to have to go to the hassle of throwing someone out of the party if they cant support the Government on every little minor issue as long as they can toe the line on the important issues like the budget and votes of confidence etc. They have a more sofisticated system in other countries and it works well enough, it makes sense that there would be a desire to change the whip system to some degree to make unnecessary the kind of wrangeling needed to keep everyone on board on every issue and prevent a governments majority being erroded from people going overboard.

The current government can afford to be strict on the whip and loose members now and again due to the fact that they have such a larg majority, but that won't always be the case.

I always wondered why political parties seem to feel the urge to have formal party policy on almost every conceivable economic / political / social / environmental issue. They'd be better off concentrating on core values and allowing free votes on non core values.

An Coilean

PRAF wrote: »

I always wondered why political parties seem to feel the urge to have formal party policy on almost every conceivable economic / political / social / environmental issue. They'd be better off concentrating on core values and allowing free votes on non core values.

Well I would say there are two reasons, one is to get votes from people who are interested in that area, you will have people comming up to you to ask about what your party will do for x issue, and it doesnt really go down well if they have nothing to say.

Secondly for many issues there will be a few people in the party with an interest in the issue who will put a policy proposal together and push for it to be addopted as party policy, sometimes its not adopted, but more often than not it is.

Harry Angstrom

MP's in the UK often vote against their whip. They don't get suspended from their party and the sky doesn't fall in. The whip system here stifles any sort of reasonable debate, and the hypocrisy of it is disgusting. For instance, Denis Naughten lost the Fine Gael whip after he understandably could not support the government's decision to close Roscommon Hospital A&E. Enda Kenny and James Reilly had given assurances to the people of Roscommon prior to the general election that they would not close it.

Zubeneschamali

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Denis Naughten lost the Fine Gael whip after he understandably could not support the government's decision to close Roscommon Hospital A&E.

He fixed the parish pump!

Harry Angstrom

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He fixed the parish pump!

That's not very fair. Kenny and Reilly effectively lied to the people of Roscommon. Naughten was elected in good faith.

Zubeneschamali

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Kenny and Reilly effectively lied to the people of Roscommon. Naughten was elected in good faith.

Yes, and then Kenny and O'Reilly did the right thing, and Naughten did something stupid.

tayto lover

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and then Kenny and O'Reilly did the right thing, and Naughten did something stupid.

He showed far more honour than the other two.

Zubeneschamali

tayto lover wrote: »

He showed far more honour than the other two.

Good one!

tayto lover

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Good one!

Yes he obviously is not a bare-faced liar.:rolleyes:

Harry Angstrom

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and then Kenny and O'Reilly did the right thing, and Naughten did something stupid.

It's "Reilly" actually.

Zubeneschamali

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes he obviously is not a bare-faced liar.:rolleyes:

He obviously thought defying the party whip would earn him more votes than following it, after the party got him a seat.

Let's see how that works out the election after next.

Zubeneschamali

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

It's "Reilly" actually.

I beg the Minister's pardon.

creedp

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and then Kenny and O'Reilly did the right thing, and Naughten did something stupid.

This is why Irish politics will never change .. FG make promises to get into Govt. They break one of the promises once they get in and it is the Govt TD that benefited from the promise who is stupid because he didn't go along with the broken promise.

While we all know that this how the charade of Irish democratically elected Govts operate, but how can one complain about Irish politics and simultaneously hold this view? The other side of theargument is that people want the elitist Seanad to be democratically elected so that they will better represent the people? Just like the Dail I presume?

Zubeneschamali

creedp wrote: »

how can one complain about Irish politics and simultaneously hold this view?

Simple: I complain about Irish politics, but politicians breaking stupid promises is not one of my complaints. Politicians making stupid promises is.

micosoft

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

MP's in the UK often vote against their whip. They don't get suspended from their party and the sky doesn't fall in. The whip system here stifles any sort of reasonable debate, and the hypocrisy of it is disgusting. For instance, Denis Naughten lost the Fine Gael whip after he understandably could not support the government's decision to close Roscommon Hospital A&E. Enda Kenny and James Reilly had given assurances to the people of Roscommon prior to the general election that they would not close it.

And this is a superb example of why a Whip system is necessary. Without getting into the specifics of closing or not closing, a policy decision was made by the HSE to shut it down which was based on a rational reconfiguration of services. Local interests who typically never support change demanded it stay open. Denis put his electoral prospects ahead of a Government decision and lost the whip. This was no act of principle - it was cowardice.
As an aside I live near Loughlinstown A&E and have supported it's closure despite the usual crew coming out to "save it". The reality is that medical care is vastly different to 30 years ago and we have a motorway network. Change is necessary.

creedp

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Simple: I complain about Irish politics, but politicians breaking stupid promises is not one of my complaints. Politicians making stupid promises is.

I wasn't referring specfically to you. I was was trying to make the point that there seems to be no means to improve on what is currently a very broken political system in this country.

Its laughable then when you hear people being critisized for not going out to vote or sploiling their ballot paper .. people died so you could have the vote!! It is no surprise the high level of voter apathy in this country or the cynism that peole have toward politics in general. I think we are at a point that unless there is a new political party established in this country it is difficult to understand why we have elections at all other than to give new faces a change to get in on the act.

creedp

micosoft wrote: »

And this is a superb example of why a Whip system is necessary. Without getting into the specifics of closing or not closing, a policy decision was made by the HSE to shut it down which was based on a rational reconfiguration of services. Local interests who typically never support change demanded it stay open. Denis put his electoral prospects ahead of a Government decision and lost the whip. This was no act of principle - it was cowardice.
As an aside I live near Loughlinstown A&E and have supported it's closure despite the usual crew coming out to "save it". The reality is that medical care is vastly different to 30 years ago and we have a motorway network. Change is necessary.

No difficulty with this view .. the problem is with the irrational and undeliverable promises made during an election which can be ignored after election day seemingly without any sanction. Sure what did you expect .. politicians keep promises?

Javan

A slightly different take on the debate about the whip (I think):

I read the article in TheJournal where Enda Kenny explains that 'One cannot have instability'. To my mind what he is saying can be paraphrased as:
I think Fine Gael TDs are so stupid and / or selfish that they would bring down the government rather than do right by the country.

That is a shocking indictment of his own party colleagues. If that is true then I want to know about it. I want to know who those TDs are so we can give them the boot. Right now I cannot know who those TDs are, and as a result we have a parliament stuffed to the gills with the most self-serving, lazy and parochial idiots in the country.

micosoft

Javan wrote: »

A slightly different take on the debate about the whip (I think):

I read the article in TheJournal where Enda Kenny explains that 'One cannot have instability'. To my mind what he is saying can be paraphrased as:
I think Fine Gael TDs are so stupid and / or selfish that they would bring down the government rather than do right by the country.

That is a shocking indictment of his own party colleagues. If that is true then I want to know about it. I want to know who those TDs are so we can give them the boot. Right now I cannot know who those TDs are, and as a result we have a parliament stuffed to the gills with the most self-serving, lazy and parochial idiots in the country.

Have you not seen the News recently? How a group of unwhipped US representatives might actually take down the World Economy for partisan interest?
The answer is not just FG - all Politicians do this when they can get away with it. Imagine a Dail full of Mick and Mings.... The whip is a necessary check in our system of democracy.

micosoft

creedp wrote: »

No difficulty with this view .. the problem is with the irrational and undeliverable promises made during an election which can be ignored after election day seemingly without any sanction. Sure what did you expect .. politicians keep promises?

But what I am saying is that a rational voter should look at an irrational and undeliverable promise and choose not to vote for this candidate in the first place. It's too late after and you have to wait 5 years

You are expecting the cart to go before the horse if you think the politician is going to offer realistic promises first and promptly not get voted in while Micky Liar gets his seat. The buck stops with the electorate. We have to learn there are consequences to believing bull**** promises.

As an adjunct to this. Just because an electorate votes for a policy does not mean they get it. Some people seem to be of the opinion that the electorate can vote away the recession because that's like, democracy man. It worries me that this mindset of the infallible voter is accepted in Ireland when all the evidence is that typically the Irish electorate make poor choices. Learn for a year or two. Then repeat.

hmmm

The whip gives cover to politicians who need to make difficult decisions. We already have enough parish pump gombeens in the Dail without encouraging more.

Do we need the whip on every vote? No of course not. I see it as a sign that our political leaders lack confidence, or perhaps there's some tribal thing going where they expect all their TDs to genuflect to them.

Burke was a big fan of political parties, as without them he felt it would be impossible to get legislation enacted. I don't always agree with him, but I do on this.

creedp

micosoft wrote: »

But what I am saying is that a rational voter should look at an irrational and undeliverable promise and choose not to vote for this candidate in the first place. It's too late after and you have to wait 5 years.

Agree but voting for irrational and undeliverable promises is deeply ingrained in the Irish electorate psyche. Can you seriously see a politician/party that promises increased income taxes and reduced social welfare payments actually getting elected in Ireland any time soon? This is democracy in action though which is obviously far superior to the elitist unelected Seanad.

Given that democracy produces flawed outcomes its all the more important that the Seanad be reformed to make it more representative and better able to protect the electorate from themselves.

An Coilean

creedp wrote: »

Agree but voting for irrational and undeliverable promises is deeply ingrained in the Irish electorate psyche. Can you seriously see a politician/party that promises increased income taxes and reduced social welfare payments actually getting elected in Ireland any time soon? This is democracy in action though which is obviously far superior to the elitist unelected Seanad.

Given that democracy produces flawed outcomes its all the more important that the Seanad be reformed to make it more representative and better able to protect the electorate from themselves.

The current Government were promising increased taxes and cuts to public services in the election campaign and they got a record majority.

So i'd say your a bit wrong there.

creedp

An Coilean wrote: »

The current Government were promising increased taxes and cuts to public services in the election campaign and they got a record majority.

So i'd say your a bit wrong there.

The promise that resonates most with people is the FG promise "we will not increase income taxes". Also there is a diconnect between cuts in public services which many associate with public sector pay (which is universally praised as positive) and cuts and in social welfare.