"I will not oppose the general thrust of [ the government's] policy. No other policy of opposition will conform to the real needs of the Irish people: any other policy of opposition would amount simply to a cynical exploitation of short-term political opportunities for a political advantage which would prove to be equally short-lived. I will not play that game, because it would not produce any real or lasting advantage for the Irish people - least of all for those who currently have neither political nor economic advantage." writes Noel Whelan
In his address to the Tallaght Chamber of Commerce on November 2nd, 1987, Alan Dukes, the then leader of Fine Gael, promised conditional support for the minority Fianna Fáil government on economic matters. The above passage from that speech is an example of how Dukes sought to explain and justify this new approach to opposition. It subsequently became known as the Tallaght Strategy.
Three weeks ago, in light of the political row which developed after the first set of revelations about misdiagnoses at Midland Regional Hospital in Portlaoise, I was among a number of columnists who argued that the time had come for a consensus approach among the political parties towards health policy; calling for something akin to the Tallaght Strategy, or the more recent cross-party approach on Northern Ireland policy.
In response to this call for a cross-party consensus Opposition spokespeople, instead of dealing with its substance, have sought to dismiss it as politically motivated. This allegation can be all too conveniently thrown at me because of my previous political involvement.
It cannot, however, be thrown with any credibility at those other commentators who, independently, made precisely the same suggestion over the course of the same weekend.
The extent of the cancer screening fiasco at Portlaoise has worsened since we made this suggestion and the scale of the mismanagement of the crisis has been greater.
If anything, these further revelations should serve to emphasise the need for greater political consensus on health policy.
The kind of noisy and acrimonious brawling between the parties about health policy witnessed this week in the Dáil chamber and in television studios does nothing to improve our health services and does much to undermine the standing of our political system. The political furore engendered by the motion of no-confidence in Mary Harney has come and gone, but the real challenges of addressing difficulties in the health service remains and so does the need for a crossparty approach to resolving them.
The new uber-Opposition mode which Fine Gael, in particular, has adopted in recent weeks may have made some new political reputations and may have been good for party morale in the short-term, but in the medium- or longer-term it may do nothing for Fine Gael's effort to establish itself as a potential party of government, and it will certainly do nothing to solve the problems in the health services.
In calling for a new Tallaght Strategy on at least some aspects of the health debate, I and others are not arguing that the Opposition should be muted or neutered - nor are we suggesting that the Government should not be held to account in this important area of policy.
A Tallaght Strategy approach is not inconsistent with robust and effective opposition or parliamentary accountability.
From 1987 to 1989, although supporting the central tenets of economic policy, the Dukes-led Fine Gael parliamentary party was still an effective opposition.
Day in and day out it fought the Haughey government on the detail of spending and tax policies and on all other policy fronts. Indeed, Dukes forced six Dáil defeats on the Haughey government, the last of which - a motion calling for aid to haemophilia victims of Hepatitis C - precipitated the 1989 election.
During their stints as leaders of the opposition in the 1990s, both Bertie Ahern and John Bruton had much to say on Northern Ireland policy and at times were critical of the approach which the other, as taoiseach, was taking to negotiations with the British government. However, this was largely constructive criticism delivered in a careful and considered manner, at all times mindful that disagreement between the southern political parties would offer only comfort to those, including the men of violence, who sought to undermine the peace process.
The notion that Dukes's Tallaght Strategy had only negative political consequences for Fine Gael is another myth which has been recycled since our recent calls for a consensual approach on health policy. There is much evidence to the contrary.
In his book The Making of the Celtic Tiger, which he co-wrote with Padraic White, the then finance minister Ray MacSharry devotes a full chapter to the Tallaght Strategy and its significance to the economic turnaround. He tells how he was both astounded and delighted when he heard about Dukes' speech to the Tallaght chamber and pays strong tributes to Dukes for what he did in the national interest. MacSharry also points out that polls taken after the Tallaght speech gave Dukes the highest satisfaction ratings among all the party leaders.
It is also worth noting that in the 1989 election under Dukes's leadership, Fine Gael increased its number of seats by five, to 55 - which is four seats more than it has now. Later, in 1991, Dukes was toppled in a coup which ushered in decades of in-fighting in Fine Gael.
It is this in-fighting, rather than Dukes's initial Tallaght strategy, which explains Fine Gael's electoral difficulties since then.
Responsibility for the state of our health services must lie primarily with the current Government. However, there can be little dispute that the need to reform and improve the health services is now the most significant challenge facing all our politicians. Our health system and our political system would both benefit from a cross-party approach to meeting that challenge.