It's more a question of exam fever than football fever in here this week - a lot of nervousness and uncertainty, with the possibility of a few surprise or sneak questions popping up and no guarantee that all will come right in the end.
Drapier is not for one moment painting a picture of instability or a rush to the country. This Government is, in the words of Mary O'Rourke on a different occasion, "glued together" and will stay that way. Dail majorities are safe and will continue that way. Only a shock of seismic proportions could blow it apart and whether Flood or Moriarty will provide such a shock or whether it will come, as it usually does, from an unexpected source - only time will tell.
Meanwhile rumours abound. Most outlandish, some malicious and if past experience is any guide, most are probably without foundation. There is, though, a nastiness in the air, generated in Drapier's view more by outside players - PR and legal worlds - than by people in here, but making people jittery nonetheless.
Government people are watching the World Cup with keen interest - not so much for the football but knowing that groups wanting to make their own domestic point might quickly hijack any major national showpiece. It started with the French pilots, continued with the trouble on the Champs Elysees and will feature for the duration.
The immediate worry here is the Tour de France and the threat of Garda disruption. The gardai did themselves few favours on "blue flu" day and a disruption of a major national showpiece event would unleash a fury of anger. We are a strange people in that we hate making a show of ourselves in front of the world and that is what the gardai threaten to do. And Drapier has no doubt P.J. Stone and his people are capable of doing it.
The mood is nasty and John O'Donoghue is under pressure. There is no Opposition sympathy for him but the issue goes deeper than personality clashes and Drapier is worried that, at this stage, with little time left, there is so little sign of movement.
Meanwhile too the clouds begin to gather on the economic front. The problem for most of us is whom do we believe. In the past, Drapier has tended to put his belief more in the practical business types than in the academic economists. At the moment there is a clear gap between what each is saying: overheating or full steam ahead?
Drapier is beginning to believe that because Prof Brendan Walsh and Mr Moore McDowell are saying it, does not necessarily mean it is wrong. Their view has gained ground recently among many people in here. Drapier has no doubt Charlie McCreevy is already a card-carrying member, and when Charlie makes up his mind he's not easily shifted.
What all this means is not easy to say. Charlie McCreevy may find himself isolated in Cabinet or, as is more usually the case with finance ministers, he may get his way. One way or other the Government will find dealing with the consequences of success, with expectations raised on a universal basis, may prove even more intractable in the long run than handling the problems of failure and austerity. And it will be the Government's handling of these problems which will determine the outcome of the next election, much more than whatever happens at the tribunals.
Drapier is generally a trusting fellow; few would regard him as suspicious or cynical. And yet this week he finds himself scratching his head and asking if something is going on which he doesn't fully understand.
Let him start with the big one: Mary Harney and all her talk of National Irish Bank offshore accounts and publishing names and bringing in the DPP and all of that. Now far be it from Drapier to doubt Mary Harney. He is an admirer and believes that but for her the PDs would never have got off the ground in those early days and she has been a good Tanaiste.
But Mary Harney is also a canny politician and all this talk of NIB and lists of names follows a little too closely on the obvious discomfiture of the PDs over the Ray Burke saga and the questions asked about what role now for the PDs, to be entirely coincidental.
Drapier may have a bad mind, but one of the oldest ruses in politics is when in trouble, start up a bit of diversion. Move the story's focus elsewhere. Certainly the emphasis on NIB and offshore accounts, a story guaranteed saturation coverage from RTE since it is their story, is doing just that.
If the story has substance Drapier will be the first to doff his hat to Mary Harney. If it turns out to be more of a decoy, Drapier will still doff his hat as he salutes Mary as a real pro. Either way, Mary wins.
Drapier's other cause for suspicion is the sudden attention being paid to our electoral system. Noel Dempsey has long been an advocate of change, even conducting his own polls among colleagues when in Opposition. But now we have the Constitutional Review Group commissioning learned academic treatises on the subject, with some variant of the German system being held up for inspection.
Drapier simply asks what it is all about. He has heard nobody in here or outside talking about change. Indeed if one thing is certain it is that the public likes our present system.
It makes for great television, has more drama and uncertainly than a year of Fair City and puts manners on politicians. The people were twice given the opportunity to change it and twice said no.
Drapier will admit that Fianna Fail blew it on each occasion. In 1959 James Dillon would probably have done a deal with Fianna Fail on the single seat alternative vote, as would Liam Cosgrave in 1968. But each time they were rebuffed. Drapier knows too that every Taoiseach from W.T. Cosgrave to Garret FitzGerald and after, with the single exception of John A. Costello, favoured a change and Drapier can see why they felt as they did.
But all that is academic. As far as most people are concerned our present system works. We have had stability; if governments grow remote or arrogant they can be punished and increasingly we have a variety of choice. In Drapier's view the worst thing we could have is the List system with two classes of politicians - constituency men who would do the groundwork and "experts" who would look after the legislation.
The last thing we need are more experts - "remote and ineffectual dons" as Hilaire Belloc would call them, or would have if asked. The great virtue of our system is that our politicians are close to the people and long may it stay that way. So why then all this talk of something that is not going to be on the agenda?