With the news that the Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, is heading for Brussels, Cliff Taylor, Economics Editor, asks how will we manage when he leaves?
The headline writers will miss him anyway. Over the last few years we've had everything from "champagne Charlie" to " good time Charlie" - and more recently "cutback Charlie". But what will his departure mean for the economy?
With the exchequer moving back into a healthy position, the key question is whether a new incumbent will loosen the purse-strings. And given the conjunction of political and economic factors, there is a strong possibility that he, or she, will. All the right words will be said about maintaining fiscal rectitude and keeping control of spending. But in reality the temptation for a new Minister to spread some money around may be impossible to resist. We are unlikely to see a marked "lurch to the left", but the departure of Mr McCreevy may well be seen as an important turning point for the coalition Government.
One of Charlie McCreevy's main strengths has been that he was not afraid to say "no", even if the consequence was unpopularity with his colleagues, or even the wider public.This is an essential qualification for being Minister for Finance - if you're a soft touch, then the rest of the Cabinet will run rings around you.
McCreevy's record in the spending area is not perfect, of course. The run-up to the last election coincided with the peak of the economic boom and spending soared. Day-to-day spending grew by an extraordinary 21 per cent in 2001. The result was a difficult period of re-adjustment post-election. Now, however, the picture looks brighter. Spending is back under control and is likely to grow by around 7 per cent this year.
Combined with a surge in tax revenues, this has pushed the Exchequer finances back into a healthy position. Davy stockbrokers forecast this week that heading into the next Budget, the Minister - whoever it is - will be able to "spend" €1 billion - on services or lower taxes - and still hold borrowing below 1.5 per cent of Gross Domestic Product.
No doubt having endured the flak on the so-called "stealth taxes", Mr McCreevy would have liked to stay around now that the position is becoming more comfortable.
If he had, then the next couple of budgets would have been fairly predictable. Current spending would have been kept reasonably in check and Ministers would have been told that they had to live within annual increases of 7-9 per cent.
Resources would have been put into indexing tax bands and credits, and a bit more would have likely gone to capital spending. Mr McCreevy had an aversion to borrowing, so would have tried to keep it as low as possible.
A new face in Merrion Street - some of the smart money seems to be on Brian Cowen - will inevitably find it difficult to hold the line. He or she will be gently seduced by the spending departments as the Estimates for next year are completed in the autumn.
The argument to spend looks, on the face of it, politically appealing. We suffered in the local elections, the new Minister will be told, the public finances are flush and the electorate is concerned about services such as health and education. So why not spend a bit more?
The problem is that once spending takes off, it can be very difficult to get back in check. More importantly, the experience before the last election shows that more spending does not necessarily equate to better public services.
There has been much debate about the appropriate level of public spending in Ireland and whether we need to spend more as a percentage of national income to have, for example, a decent health system. However, surely we should be worrying about getting the best value for what we currently spend, before planning to lay out more? In this context there is much to be said for the McCreevy approach of telling departments to stay within allocations which are, after all, still ahead of inflation - overall spending will increase by a not inconsiderable 18 per cent in 2003 and 2004.
Since becoming finance minister in 1997, Mr McCreevy has made a virtue of low taxes and - despite the "stealth" increases of the last couple of years - this is what his tenure will be remembered for. Six percentage points have been cut off the standard and higher tax rates since 1997, the capital gains tax rate has halved to 20 per cent and reforms have been introduced, particularly the introduction of tax credits.
The tax take from a single person earning €40,000 has, for example, fallen from 40 per cent in 1998 to 25 per cent this year. These changes have had an important impact on the way the economy works, making the tax system simpler and cutting disincentives to work.
While many will question the way the fruits of growth have been allocated in improving public services, there is no question that the tax cuts introduced by the Minister have contributed significantly to the creation of a new environment in the Irish economy which has supported growth and job creation.
We already know that the era of major tax cuts is over. And a new Minister would not be likely to seek to go for an all out "tax and spend" option. However, the reins may be loosened. And the effect of letting spending rise ahead of tax revenue over the next few years would inevitably be paid in higher taxes - either immediately or in future years.
For this reason Budget 2005, to be presented in December, will take on a whole new importance and will be a key signal of whether policy has altered.
Certainly, the mood music of the Government will change, as it loses Mr McCreevy's stridency, his absolute determination to hold down borrowing and his relentless selling of the low tax economic model.
No doubt this is part of the Taoiseach's thinking in offering him the job in Brussels. But at a time when the economy is coming right again, it is a big risk to get rid of the man that has overseen it.
The Minister for Agriculture, Mr Walsh, said this week that Mr McCreevy was the most successful finance minister in Europe. It might be more accurate to say that he is presiding over the most successful economy. However it is hard to argue with the comparisons - the Irish economy is growing more quickly than our EU partners, has lower debt levels, healthier public finances and much lower unemployment.
Key issues remain in terms of continuing this economic success, harnessing it to provide better public services and infrastructure and helping those left at the margins. The Government has been often ineffective, and at times inept, at tackling many of these areas. But at the macro level - the overall shape of the public finances - Mr McCreevy generally got it right. His departure signals a policy shift - the only question is how significant it will be.