THERE'S definitely something about years ending in the number seven in the short history of the Irish state. 1927 was the year Fianna Fail entered the Dail for the first time, in the process copperfastening our fledgling democracy. In 1937, our constitution was introduced. Two decades later, 1957 marked the year that Lemass at long last established his ascendancy in Fianna Fail (though it would be another two years before he succeeded Dev). Meanwhile, 1977 was the year of that disastrous Fianna Fail manifesto that led the country towards a decade-long recession, lifted only by the tough decisions made in '87 by Charlie Haughey and Ray MacSharry. 1997 was the year that the reform of the extraordinarily penal tax regime finally began. And it seems that this year is shaping up to be another to add to the list . . . for all the wrong reasons.

This writer has always been of the optimistic view that, while obviously the enormous growth levels of the past 15 years couldn't continue forever, there could never be a return to the unrelenting grimness of the 1980s in Ireland.

But watching the madness unfold in recent months . . . the country has at times resembled the last days of the Roman empire . . . it's hard to be as confident.

The assumption seems to be that the good times are here forever, regardless of what we do, or don't do, and that is an extraordinarily dangerous situation.

Take, for example, the issue of public-sector pay. At a time when there are clear signs the economy is slowing down and there is an enormous loss of competitiveness in the country, reason seems to have gone out the window.

It's not just the consultants describing a salary of 205,000 a year, plus bonuses of 40,000, as "Mickey Mouse" . . . although the appalling insult to the 99% of PAYE workers who don't come within an ass's roar of that salary is undeniable. It's the overall unrealistic demands that are being made across the board. Leave aside the rights and wrongs of the nurses' current action for a second and consider how the nursing unions imagine they are going to get a 10% pay increase outside benchmarking without every other union in the country demanding a similar rise?

It's not just the nurses; teachers got 13% out of benchmarking last time, but the Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland recently called on Ictu to renegotiate the pay element of the current social partnership agreement. Ten percent is in danger of becoming everybody's bottom line.

It says something about the state of mind of the public-sector unions that it is "generally accepted" that the staff nurses got a "raw deal" out of the last benchmarking deal when it 'only' got a pay rise of 8%. When was the last time a group of workers in the private sector got a pay rise of 8%?

The widespread acceptance that the nurses have a strong case on the 35hour week is also an eye opener to private sector workers. It's undeniable that, if other professions in the health sector have it, the nurses have a justifiable argument for getting it. But when and why did a 35-hour week become the norm (in a health service that despite billions upon billions being pumped into it, is still creaking)? And sure why stop with the health service, why not introduce a 35-hour week across the entire public sector?

Benchmarking as a concept is a very good idea, which gets around archaic systems of relativities that dominated public-sector pay and helps target sectors genuinely underpaid. But benchmarking . . . comparison with private sector jobs . . . should mean proper account is taken of the guaranteed pension received by public sector workers;

the 35-hour week worked by at least some staff; the longer holidays, the fact that flexi-time and job share arrangements are more readily available and the absolute job security enjoyed by everybody in the public sector.

That is only fair and reasonable, although it patently did not happen with the last benchmarking process which turned out to be the "ATM machine" forecast by the public sector unions.

Back then, at least there was an excuse that the economy was booming and the country seemed awash with dotcom millionaires. This is not the case in 2007 and expectations must be managed accordingly.

The other truly worrying development in recent months has been the auction politics engaged in by all . . . repeat all . . . of the political parties. Something of the order of 30bn in tax cuts and expenditure increases have been promised by the political parties . . . it doesn't seem like that long ago that 30bn was a lot of money.

It was the philosopher George Santayana who famously said that those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. I had always assumed that the lessons of crazy electoral promises, massive budget deficits and caving in to powerful vested interests would never be lost on the political system. How naive was that?

Unless somebody gets a grip, 2007 is shaping up to be 1977-mark II. Let's hope it doesn't take until 2017 to sort out the mess.