Analysis: The PDs warned voters at the weekend the Labour Party would bring us all to hell in a basket, writes Denis Coghlan, chief political correspondent.
The political box containing the Progressive Democrats looks plain and unvarnished. But there is a catch. And when that catch is tripped - as Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael found to their cost in the past - a raging figure springs forth that can unsettle the electorate.
Michael McDowell is an unlikely jack-in-the-box. But the task the Attorney General has been given - and the time constraints imposed by the general election - mean that his impact on the electorate must be sudden and attention-grabbing.
To do the job, it's not enough to quote the creation of 400,000 jobs during the past five years or the tax cuts that helped raise everybody's living standards. You have to threaten people with their loss. Specifically, you have to warn that the Labour Party, in power, would send us all to hell in a basket.
In Mr McDowell's rhetoric, it was a black or white choice. The first casualties of a government involving the Labour Party would be tens of thousands of jobs, he said, followed by a reversion to the higher tax/unemployment policies that had nearly destroyed the State 15 years ago. Only the Progressive Democrats could prevent this horrible prospect and deliver on social justice.
The man who had once offered the party the choice of being radical or redundant was determined not to repeat the experience of the last general election when the Progressive Democrats were embraced - and all but absorbed - by Fianna Fáil. This time it would fight on radical independent policies and leave all options open on coalition.
As the new party president, Mr McDowell was given the task of developing policies and a general election manifesto, but only in conjunction with the parliamentary party, the national executive and the general council. His demand for absolute power was quietly refused. But there was still plenty of scope for his energy and drive in rebuilding and renewing the organisation.
As for friction with Mary Harney, he was "very supportive" of her leadership. And there was no question of him "lurking in the long grass" to challenge her.
They were clearly singing off the same hymn sheet when the Tánaiste addressed the issue of a future coalition and the need to implement their own policies. The Progressive Democrats would operate a revolving door coalition policy. The choice for the electorate, she said, lay between voting for the PDs or voting for their P 45s, even though she didn't specifically rule out participation with Labour.
Ms Harney identified an inadequate transport network as one of the main problems facing the country. The party would encourage regional development and the provision of a quality health service. It would support local communities, improve educational opportunities and tackle crime
But economic circumstances were conspiring to cramp the Progressive Democrats' style. With unemployment growing and Government revenue shrinking, tax cuts magic wasn't working. Dessie O'Malley, on his lap of honour, specifically warned that Charlie McCreevy's spendthrift policies could no longer be tolerated. Government spending would have to be cut back in line with revenue or society would revisit the failed economic policies of the 1980s.
The party, Mr O'Malley suggested, should concentrate on deregulation and opening up the economy to greater competition. And he identified the professions, particularly law, as powerful vested interests that were resisting reform. The awful competition culture that affected us so expensively was, he said, encouraged by "a deficient and outdated civil legal system".
Loyalties were divided on the abortion referendum. And, recognising the political quagmire, Mary Harney merely asked delegates to inform themselves as fully as possible before voting.
Eurosceptical sentiment and elements of the Boston versus Berlin debate surfaced briefly. While the Tánaiste and Liz O'Donnell championed the benefits of the EU and the need to endorse the Nice Treaty, the new party president hung back. The PDs, Mr McDowell declared, would not be bounced into tax harmonisation by anyone in Europe. Direct tax autonomy was not negotiable - now or in the future - and the sole right to decide direct taxation would have to reside in member- states.
But the differences were ones of emphasis, rather than principle. The party pulled together as it prepared for the election and the prospect of government. If Mary Harney's ambition to double their Dáil representation is even partially realised, she will not have to worry about filling empty seats at the conference centre next time out.