Unlikely as it seems, Irish Water might help to unite Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael

Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have at last found some common ground on water charges. They both got their fingers badly burnt on this political hot potato.

We all know FG’s role in Irish Water. But over the last couple of weeks, FF also managed to singe its digits.

First, it drew flak for campaigning against something it legislated to set up. Next, FF had to relearn a major disadvantage of holding power: people pay more attention to what you say because you can put it into practice. The party seemed to suggest that nonpayers would be let off the hook, causing a backlash from payers.

FF was still blowing on its burnt fingers over that when it was caught issuing contradictory statements on whether Irish Water was a red line issue for coalition talks. And as soon as this line was conveniently moved, yet-another Irish Water controversy erupted.

One of the biggest controversies about Irish Water was the fear that it would be privatised. Now I don’t know what’s so great about State-owned utilities. (The ESB, for example, pays its workers and bosses way more while charging among the dearest energy prices in Europe.) Yet for the watercharge objectors to whom FF is trying to appeal, going private is a big no-no.

And finally, trade unions aren’t too happy with FF’s proposal to abolish Irish Water and replace it with a body similar to the National Roads Authority.

Why? Because the NRA contracts out most of its work, which would mean private operators practically running the show. That’s not the same as privatisation but it’s not far off it!

However, sharing this Irish Water-related headache could drive FF and FG together. They already have plenty in common anyway.

Any policies that differ in their respective manifestos could easily slot into either one. FF’s plans to cut DIRT and rates to help small-town businesses are pure FG.

Meanwhile, FG goes further to the left than FF on the minimum wage and the Drug Payment threshold.

An FF/FG coalition wouldn’t be that bad for our finances. It would at least effectively kill off unfair and crushing USC. The consensus that emerged after the election was that FG lost out by focusing on tax cuts.

I don’t buy this. It contradicts the other supposed lesson to emerge – that cash-strapped voters were angry because they hadn’t felt the recovery yet.

Surely people who feel short-changed and in need of money would welcome tax cuts, not punish the parties that offer them?

Also, it wasn’t just FG that pitched more tax cuts; most parties did, even the left.

The party that rejected tax cuts in favour of services were the Social Democrats, whose modest success has been greeted as if we had a national conversion to a Scandinavian-style socialism of high taxes but great services. But there was – and still are – only three SocDems. And I suspect that Scandinavian-style socialism here would just mean high taxes – and still-poor services. Do we really trust politicians, even nice ones like the SocDems, to deliver?

Combining the best of FF’s and FG’s policies in any prospective marriage may not be so bad. Comparing the two manifestos, FF’s is more creative, with more original ideas, while FG’s is more consistent and responsible in terms of the bigger picture.

Merging them could be like a marriage between a creative but somewhat flighty person kept on the straight and narrow by a boring but sensible spouse.

But what kind of relationship would it be? And would it last? A minority FG government wouldn’t work. It would be like climbing down a cliff-face on a fraying rope. A full coalition would break the pledges made before the election. But what about a power-sharing executive as they have in the North? Instead of marriage, this would be like cohabitation, Scandi-style.

At least that would keep the SocDems happy!