So now we have it. The Government denounced as arrogant, out-of-touch, and right-wing, which was routed in the June elections, is behind us. The new-look caring, sharing, listening Cabinet is in place, we have been assured. The 2007 (or 2006) general election campaign starts here, writes Mark Brennock.
Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats will have been in power for close to 10 years when the next election happens. Even if the Government does not collapse in failure or disgrace before then, or other parties don't come up with a coherent alternative vision, the Opposition parties will hope that the public will simply tire of this lot.
"If I were them," said a Government adviser of the Opposition parties some months ago, "I would take out copyright on the slogan: 'Time for a change'." Such a message might strike a chord with voters more than any clever policy proposals or vision.
While Labour has outlined a left-of-centre political position in recent months and the Greens have a clearly defined view of society, Fine Gael has confined itself to generalised commitments to value for money, high-quality public services, sound economics, social justice and, of course, "delivery".
"Delivery", Britain's Industry Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, said last year in the context of Labour's internal debate, is what pizza companies do. And yet politicians prefer more and more to put themselves forward as better managers than the other lot, rather than as having different ideals and values. Even the Tánaiste, Ms Harney, whose clear ideologically liberal economic outlook has effected substantial change in Ireland, this week insisted she was not motivated by ideology at all, just "common sense".
"Time for a change" is therefore the dominant Opposition message as Fine Gael, Labour, and possibly the Greens, move towards a common platform for the general election. The reshuffle is a direct response: the Taoiseach has tried to give us that change now, before the voters impose it.
And it is a big change. Out is Charlie McCreevy, who, the party believes, has contributed significantly to the "arrogance" tag; the two most senior ministers, Michael Smith and Joe Walsh, have gone too; high-profile Séamus Brennan has been shifted from Transport; the State has its first woman Minister for Agriculture; and a determined reformer and powerful figure within Cabinet, Mary Harney, has chosen to go to Health.
Backbenchers are right when they complain that there was not much change among the Ministers of State. But the majority of junior ministers might as well form a secret society, for all most voters know about them. So, whether or not they are reshuffled radically makes little difference to the Government's image. It is the Cabinet changes which will determine whether the Government can indeed show itself to have changed.
And many of the new ministers may well provide some of that much-prized "delivery". Martin Cullen survived rumours that he would be dropped after the e-voting fiasco to take control of the pivotal Transport portfolio. He will want to prove himself by delivering more efficient public transport, the completion of major road projects, and an effective road safety programme.
Mary Harney has the blueprint for health service reform on her desk now. She took this job in order to push for reform. And in her new job she will hardly object to greater funding for the health services if it is required.
The three new Ministers, Mary Hanafin, Dick Roche, and Willie O'Dea, have around two years to ensure they have a future in Cabinet. They will work very hard. Micheál Martin will want to prove himself in an economic job, Noel Dempsey will want to recover in Communications from the trials he had in Education in relation to third-level fees.
Crucially, there will be money. Yesterday's Exchequer figures showed the public finances continuing to improve. Growth is expected to continue between 4 and 5 per cent over the next year. There will be substantial tax revenues available to improve services.
It is likely that a Cabinet with many ministers keen to prove themselves, and the financial means to do so, will provide lots of "delivery" in the next two years. This means the Opposition will have to offer voters something else. There are two options.
One is to declare that it has a different view of society. Fine Gael, Labour and the Greens have in common a stated concern about what has become known as "quality of life". One could see them agreeing a platform that acknowledges recent economic growth and its benefits. But it would also argue that more of these benefits should be diverted away from private consumption and towards better childcare, transport, health, schools and community services that would make the Celtic Tiger lifestyle less frenetic and pressurised. It would say that there is a choice to be made between public and private wealth.
For example, except during times of extraordinary economic growth, there is a choice between tax cuts that will allow you buy a shiny new car, or paying taxes that will build a fine new road on which to drive a more ordinary car (although the Greens might have problems with both road and car).
One could imagine all three parties uniting around such a broad concept and if it worked, the Opposition would not just have won an election but won an argument, and have a mandate to implement a different vision of society.
The second, less ambitious option is "Time for a Change", where change means a change in personnel rather than direction. The Cabinet reshuffle does not hide the fact that this lot have, with some personnel changes, been in power for seven years. The change of direction after the 2002 general election may have permanently damaged them.
"Time for a Change" might yet be enough, but it would represent dull, unimaginative politics.