The prospect of facing the electorate is beginning to tell on an increasingly edgy Dail. Yet the question most often raised by politicians and commentators is about power, not progress: not so much, "What is to be done?" as "Who'll be in the top spot when the band stops playing?"
This kind of stuff used to be mildly entertaining. Not any longer. Even those who have no more than a passing interest in politics seem to detect a growing insecurity in the management of our public affairs.
The Coalition's leaders have become less sure of themselves - and each other. They disagree on such critical issues as the way in which financial institutions are to be regulated and whether there ought to be yet another pointless referendum on abortion.
And, as Michael McDowell's proposal of another new departure for the Progressive Democrats shows, the insecurity is catching.
Ruairi Quinn argues that the next election should be about "the kind of society we wish to create". And so it should. As he said in Cork lately, "The old, and some of the new, certainties are disappearing". Even social partnership must "find a new rationale if it is to survive".
The trouble with partnership, he suggested, was that it "crowded out" divisions between political parties. Which, as we know, conveys an impression of consensus when what really exists is confusion; when a rush for cover is taken for unity.
Now, though, the divisions are starting to emerge again, due largely to the debate on our kind of society - social democratic (European), winner takes all (American) or a third way yet to be designed but not to be confused with Tony Blair's.
Quinn considers the reopening divisions the best thing that could happen to politics. He's right. There are many areas on which the appearance of consensus would be deceptive and the pretence unhealthy.
How to rescue the political system from low standards, for example. Everyone claims to be in favour of improvement but, Quinn argues, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have been slow to accept Labour's proposals. There is no consensus on corporate contributions and State funding.
Quinn insists it's in the interests of both business and politics that a clear line be drawn between the two. Indeed, it seems indisputable that a fairer society would serve the interests of all its citizens.
But building a fairer society is possible only if the task is embraced by all government Departments and State agencies, if the vision informs all policies, especially those of the Department of Finance.
There are four measures by which Ireland's progress can be analysed: development, gender equality, literacy and health rates. And on these Ireland is the 18th most developed country in the world but only the 11th in the EU. In the Human Poverty Index, also compiled by the UN, which measures disparities in life expectancy, unemployment and wealth, we are 17th out of 18 OECD countries.
Quinn comments: "No one political party or government is responsible for this, but we will be if we don't address these issues now that we have the resources to do so." We've created an economy comparable to the best in the world, but as a society we already spend less than any other EU state on services and facilities for our people.
And the Government - led by Bertie Ahern, man of the people, caring Mary Harney and Charlie "Ratzinger" McCreevy - wants to see this figure decline. So do the propagandists who drone on, in ideological cliche, about statism when what they want is lower spending on all public services, particularly health, welfare and education.
Ahern argues that we can continue to improve services while cutting taxes. It's an argument some in Fine Gael compare with his equally contradictory claim that the so-called "Real IRA" aren't really republican - as if the Provos were.
Quinn says: "Labour will be honest with the Irish people come the next election. We will implement the PPF tax cuts but thereafter our priorities will shift towards improving the quality of life of all our citizens."
Kathleen Lynch, director of the Equality Studies Centre at UCD, challenges all parties, especially Labour, in an article on creating an egalitarian society in the current issue of Times Change.
You don't have to be a Marxist, she says, to realise that capitalism produces huge economic inequalities. But even capitalist systems can be managed and challenged in a way that would greatly reduce inequalities: Sweden, Germany and Japan have far lower economic inequality than the US.
Here, too, the levels of economic inequality could be greatly reduced should the political will exist. She asks: "Should there not be some concept of a maximum-minimum income ratio between workers' wages as has existed in Japan? Surely one does not need to earn a salary that is 10, even 30, times that of the average worker as an incentive?
"In terms of wealth, why do we know so little about wealth ownership and incomes accruing from unearned wealth? Why are systems of taxation on wealth so ineffective? Whose interests are being served by the lack of information and by ineffectual systems of taxation?
"Why do our political leaders hide behind the private property clauses of the Constitution so often when questions of radical economic equality are raised? In whose interests is it to maintain the supremacy of private property in the Constitution?"
Too true. But when Labour, supported by Fine Gael, Green Party and Independents proposed a Bill to open the way to such change this week, the measure was voted down by FF and the PDs.
Focal scoir: a few years ago I went to see the stadium in Berlin where the 1936 Olympics were held. And there was the seat that Hitler left when that great man Jessie Owens sprinted to victory. In spite of his disability.
dwalsh@irish-times.ie