Fine Gael yesterday all but claimed that the social partnership model of the past two decades was now failing and needed to be reformed or replaced with a new model.
In his strongest critique of partnership, the party's deputy leader Richard Bruton said it had lost its way and its Byzantine nature meant it was slowing down rather than accelerating reforms.
Mr Bruton said he was putting the blame squarely on the Government for failing to set out a new and radical reform agenda and relying on a process that was wholly unaccountable to the Dáil. This, he said, had huge implications for democracy.
Mr Bruton was speaking ahead of the next round of social partnership talks, which begins next week.
"The conditions which led to its establishment 20 years ago have changed radically. The system is now seen as a cosy arrangement among insiders. Its sense of vision has been lost. Process has taken over from purpose."
Mr Bruton did not call for the dismantling of the apparatus and said that simply having the Government negotiating with each of the partners separately was missing the point.
"Negotiations can take place collectively or individually. The point is you have to put forward the agenda of change and make sure we accelerate that agenda at a time of economic change."
He instanced getting real agreement on climate change measures; introducing bus competition; greatly improving national competitiveness; finding ways of removing non-performing teachers; and rewarding success in the public service.
"It is time that they recognise that the process of social partnership has lost its way," he said. "The Government is content to ignore its limitations because it gives them cover for their failures."
But the argument was rejected by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, who said partnership was a continuing success. "When we started social partnership there were a million people working in the country. Now we have well over two million people [ working]," he said.
"A huge amount of it has been the non-adversarial way that employers and workers have worked together," he added.
Mr Ahern also argued that the only alternative to the model was a return to industrial unrest.
"The concept of breaking a policy and going back to a situation where the strong will be well and all the rest will lose is not a good economic model.
"You go back to strikes and go back to difficulties," Mr Ahern said.