Economics:Michael McDowell's quip about a Fine Gael / Labour-led coalition being a "slump coalition" is very wide off the mark, writes Marc Coleman.
Like the "evil eyes" campaign run by the British Conservatives against Tony Blair in 1997, this sort of hyperbole has all the potential in the world to backfire, particularly given the growing dependence of the economy on the property market under the present Government, not to mention the increasingly dysfunctional relationship between that market and the policies and statements of Government Ministers.
The last rainbow coalition government kept its deficits within the Stability Pact limits. It might be mentioned that that pact was brokered by the then Irish finance minister Ruairi Quinn, someone widely regarded as a good finance minister. It also presided over an economy characterised by strong growth and low inflation.
To be sure, it refused to cut income tax rates and, at the end of its tenure, unemployment remained higher than it should have been, at 11 per cent - although it made some progress in reducing that rate from the 17 per cent rate it inherited.
And while it did break its own targets on spending growth, those targets were more onerous than the double digit pre-election ones set by the present Government.
Still, had he used the right arguments, McDowell might have attacked the idea of an alternative to the present Government with much more effect. As recent events in Italy have once again shown, multiparty government can be highly problematic. There, a nine-party coalition, straddling centre-right Christian Democrats at one end and extreme left Trotskyites on the other, collapsed on an issue relating to foreign policy.
Where one party is in government, but dependant on the votes of a few independents, or when three or more parties are in government, one of two problems can arise, depending on how good the times are.
Multiparty coalitions differ from single-party government or two-party coalition by having more snouts at the trough. That, in turn, leads to more competition for resources.
In good times, raising spending is the line of least resistance. This is what explains the breaches of its spending targets by the last rainbow. It also explains phenomena such as the generous spending by the 1997-2002 government on the development of roads in the Kerry constituency of Jackie Healy Rae, an independent TD supporting the government of the day.
On the spending front, the record of the present government might seem to buck the theory, but it doesn't. When political scientists refer to a "political party", they usually have in mind a strongly-led, centralised organisation with rigid discipline and loyal parliamentarians.
Together with Fianna Fáil's propensity for its TDs to break out as independents (note the much lower propensity of Fine Gael TDs to go it alone), Bertie Ahern's indulgence of a million points of view has undermined those characteristics.
A solid phalanx of soldiers when in Opposition, or when in Government during tough times, Fianna Fáil behaves like a loose coalition of tribal chiefs when it is in Government and there is money to spend. Sectional and regional agendas abound, a phenomenon reflected in the recent bid by independent TD for Cavan Monaghan Paudge Connolly's negotiations with Fianna Fáil about joining that party if a certain hospital in his constituency is not closed.
This is just a nuisance in good times. The real trouble starts when economic times get rough. I am just about old enough to remember the early 1980s when three elections were held in the space of just 18 months. The first election was a natural one caused by the 1977 government coming to the end of its term. But the second and third elections in that period were caused by government defeats, defeats that happened because independent TDs holding the balance of power brought down the government on points of economic policy. Unlike the late 1990s and today, there simply was no money left to buy them off.
This problem is exacerbated by the ideological distance between the parties in government, and also by the number of parties in government.
In the latter respect, one trend should worry everyone: From a position where they commanded more than 80 per cent of the vote the dominant parties - Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael - now command only around 60 per cent.
And while the growth in the left-wing vote might be welcome from the point of view of giving some balance to debate about the future of the State, the distribution of the left-wing vote is alarming. Around one-third of Irish voters now vote for parties of the left, broadly defined.
But instead of being consolidated in one dominant party, this vote is spread over the Labour party, Sinn Féin, the Green party, the Socialist party and several independent TDs.
Whether they are left wing or right wing, all economists agree that governments should - regardless of their hue - be stable and internally coherent. In the mid-1990s, the differences in view between Fine Gael on the one hand and Democratic Left on the other were easily solved by a buoyant Exchequer.
Unless they gain an extraordinary and unprecedented number of seats in the next election, Fine Gael and Labour will need to supplement their majority with recourse to the Greens at the very least.
In all likelihood, even this will not be enough and some independents may be required. Ironically the two alternatives which would guarantee stability and coherence are off the menu at the next election.
A Fine Gael/Fianna Fáil government would be stable, having the largest majority in the history of the state. It would also be coherent, stretching in outlook from the centre to the right. Alternatively, a Fianna Fáil/Labour government would be stable and also coherent, stretching from the centre to the left.
With those options ruled out - at least ahead of the vote - Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, which will lose up to 10 seats, will have to use the weeks after the election stitching together more fractious alternatives.
And when the money runs out, we'd all better watch out.
