You can't go far wrong with voters infected with the prevalent anti-politician sentiments by proposing a reduction in the number of TDs. Sure enough, Fine Gael's substantial new policy document on reform of the institutions of State contains this readily understood populist notion.
But John Bruton has been talking about Dail reform for close to 20 years, and his party's detailed 44-page document goes far beyond easily understood throwaway plans.
Mr Bruton didn't undersell it yesterday, describing it not only as the most important document produced by his party since the 1965 Just Society document, but "the most fundamental set of proposals to reform the Irish State since the State itself was founded".
The framers of the 1937 Constitution might argue with him. However, it is certainly a radical collection of plans to reform the Oireachtas, the judicial system and the public service. The document was co-written by Mr Bruton and Jim Mitchell, chairman of the Dail's Public Accounts Committee, whose conduct of the DIRT inquiry last year reopened debate on parliamentary reform. Meanwhile, the Sheedy case reopened debate on judicial reform.
As inquiries and tribunals continue to dominate Irish political life, there is growing acknowledgement of the need to transform the Oireachtas into a more effective institution, more independent of government, with greater power to inquire, investigate and hold government accountable.
The context for the Fine Gael proposals has not just been set by the successful DIRT inquiry. As politics undergoes its most intense and prolonged period of scrutiny in the history of the State, the supposed supreme political authority, the Oireachtas, has played a peripheral role.
Apart from occasional debates on the latest scandal and regular and largely pointless jousts on the order of business and during Taoiseach's questions, the Oireachtas has largely continued in business-as-usual mode.
It has been judges and lawyers in Dublin Castle who have been examining and will be passing judgment on the conduct of politics. As the Dail conducted occasional set-piece debates on ministerial actions, the media were the institution that questioned and interrogated ministers.
In the face of the dwindling relevance of parliament to the large part of the political agenda being played out in Dublin Castle, Fine Gael's central proposal is to separate clearly the roles of the Oireachtas and of government.
Under the party's plan, whose implementation would begin within a year of the party getting into government, TDs and senators would be given more money, more backup resources and greater power to vet legislation and scrutinise government actions.
The party proposes ending the situation whereby the funding of the Oireachtas is at the whim of the government. The party proposes a one-off increase in the Oireachtas budget and then the introduction of a formula for deciding the budget independent of the Department of Finance. It wants to set up a permanent Oireachtas commission to underline the independence of parliament from government.
The Dail would certainly be a livelier place under the Fine Gael plan. The Taoiseach would face questions without advance notice of their content, as opposed to the current situation whereby his Department prepares written answers for him to recite to the chamber.
The Ceann Comhairle would be empowered to oblige the Taoiseach to answer questions. Deputies could interrupt long, rambling speeches to make points. More free votes without party whips would be encouraged. Ministers and backbenchers would be discouraged from monotonously reciting long scripts written by officials. The Dail would sit for seven weeks more each year.
While supporting the popular idea of cutting the number of TDs from 166 to 143 by 2016, the party also proposes giving proper resources to those who remain. TDs would get an annual research allowance and two clerical staff. Frontbench spokesmen and women would get an executive officer to conduct research.
The proposal for fewer but more powerful committees recognises that a number of the existing 22 committees have little impact. The document proposes a dramatic reduction to nine in the number of Oireachtas committees. These would be able to undertake parliamentary inquiries, similar to the DIRT inquiry, with the assistance of a new parliamentary examiner with the powers of a High Court inspector.
Seven of the nine committees would shadow government departments and become the main forums for dealing with questions, estimates, legislation and inquiries in relation to the department they are concerned with.
In a measure that would damage Sinn Fein the most but also hurt Fianna Fail, the party proposes banning all funding of political parties from outside the State.
Just as recent events have shown the need to reform the lumbering parliamentary system, so also the Sheedy case has shown a gap in accountability in relation to the judiciary. Fine Gael's proposed judicial board is a serious attempt to plug this gap. Consisting equally of legal and non-legal members, the proposal seems to succeed in suggesting a system of accountability that nevertheless maintains the separation of powers as between the Oireachtas and judiciary.
The proposed introduction of sanctions against members of the judiciary short of impeachment will be welcomed by those who were unhappy at the treatment of Hugh O'Flaherty as a result of the Sheedy case. Under this proposal, there would be the possibility of imposing minor or moderate sanctions on judges deemed guilty of poor judicial performance. The choice would not be, as it was in the case of Mr O'Flaherty, impeachment or nothing.
Solicitors, who expressed anger this week at their exclusion from applying for posts in the Attorney General's office, will be delighted at the proposal that they, and not just senior barristers, be entitled to appointment as Attorney General. Other changes include ensuring that tribunals of inquiry no longer have just one member, and have at least one non-legal member.
Fine Gael has produced proposals that will be readily understood by the public, and says it will push them as a high priority in any negotiations to form a government. The party has capitalised on the cross-party view that the argument is no longer about whether reform is necessary, but what form it should take.