The Irish verdict George Osborne would like to forget

The case of Ireland is a cautionary tale, not an instruction manual.

RIP Ireland's economic miracle. A combination of tax cuts and increased public spending -- coupled with the credit crunch -- has left Ireland with a budget deficit of 32 per cent of its GDP this year. The credit-inflated bubble has now well and truly popped, the draconian austerity measures have failed -- as many predicted they would -- and the Irish government appears close to being bailed out by the EU.

Along with Greece, the Irish experience from the nineties into the noughties seems to be a perfect example of how not to do things. But in 2006 -- at the very apex of the Irish bubble -- one economic sage decided that Ireland was actually a fine example of how to run an econmy. His name?

George Osborne.

Writing in the Times (pre-paywall, folks), the then shadow chancellor declared:

Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in long-term economic policymaking.

Long-term, eh, George?

There was little "long-term" about the artificial housing and banking boom that Ireland underwent in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Despite Osborne's claims, Ireland did not surge ahead because of its highly regarded education system or increased research and development at universities.

Ireland boomed instead on a toxic mix of cheap credit, lax banking regulation and by becoming a borderline tax haven.

Slashing corporation tax -- a move continually hailed by Osborne as the way forward -- simply weakened Ireland's tax base even further, making the recovery that bit more difficult.

We should learn from Ireland's mistakes. Unfortunately, however, Osborne wants to copy them -- at least judging by Osborne's cuts to universities, the 3.4 per cent reduction in the education budget and his continued obsession with reducing corporation tax -- to the point where companies could end up paying less tax than their cleaners.

The case of Ireland is a cautionary tale, not an instruction manual.

UPDATE: Alphaville over at the FT points out another cautionary tale from the Irish experiment.

"Sovereign bailouts involve a certain quid pro quo.

For a start, there's been talk that Germany is pushing for the country's low, low 12.5 per cent corporate tax rate to be hiked.

...

Awkward. And perhaps not least for a certain tax-avoiding search engine."

Which tax-avoiding search engine could that be? Why, the one that George Osborne bragged about speaking to in his Times op-ed: "I will be asking Google executives today why they set up in Dublin, not London." Alphaville explains exactly why Google set up in Dublin:

"Google Ireland sends the earnings on a tax-lite journey to the Netherlands, whence a shell subsidiary passes it on practically untouched to a Bermudan holding, basically. They call it a 'Double Irish'.

Jammy stuff. Until your tax haven files for a bailout from some very angry Germans, that is. And 26 per cent of your earnings is a lot to put at risk..."

@Simon_Cullen via Twitter
Show Hide image

All 27 things wrong with today’s Daily Mail front cover

Where do I even start?

Hello. Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong. Very wrong. So wrong that if you have seen today’s Daily Mail cover, you no doubt immediately turned to the person nearest to you to ask: “Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong.”

But just how wrong is the wrong Mail cover? Let me count the ways.

  1. Why does it say “web” and not “the web”?
  2. Perhaps they were looking on a spider’s web and to be honest that makes more sense because
  3. How does it take TWO MINUTES to use a search engine to find out that cars can kill people?
  4. Are the Mail team like your Year 8 Geography teacher, stuck in an infinite loop of typing G o o g l e . c o m into the Google search bar, the search bar that they could’ve just used to search for the thing they want?
  5. And then when they finally typed G o o g l e . c o m, did they laboriously fill in their search term and drag the cursor to click “Search” instead of just pressing Enter?
  6. The Daily Mail just won Newspaper of the Year at the Press Awards
  7. Are the Daily Mail – Newspaper of the Year – saying that Google should be banned?
  8. If so, do they think we should ban libraries, primary education, and the written word?
  9. Sadly, we know the answer to this
  10. Google – the greatest source of information in the history of human civilisation – is not a friend to terrorists; it is a friend to teachers, doctors, students, journalists, and teenage girls who aren’t quite sure how to put a tampon in for the first time
  11. Upon first look, this cover seemed so obviously, very clearly fake
  12. Yet it’s not fake
  13. It’s real
  14. More than Google, the Mail are aiding terrorists by pointing out how to find “manuals” online
  15. While subsets of Google (most notably AdSense) can be legitimately criticised for profiting from terrorism, the Mail is specifically going at Google dot com
  16. Again, do they want to ban Google dot com?
  17. Do they want to ban cars?
  18. Do they want to ban search results about cars?
  19. Because if so, where will that one guy from primary school get his latest profile picture from?
  20. Are they suggesting we use Bing?
  21. Why are they, once again, focusing on the perpetrator instead of the victims?
  22. The Mail is 65p
  23. It is hard to believe that there is a single person alive, Mail reader or not, that can agree with this headline
  24. Three people wrote this article
  25. Three people took two minutes to find out cars can drive into people
  26. Trees had to die for this to be printed
  27. It is the front cover of the Mail

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.