It's not this column's intention to suggest that politicians don't work hard . . . for the vast majority they are never off duty and it is in many ways a thankless, albeit now wellpaid, job. But sitting for little more than one day in four is an absolute joke.

An Oireachtas spokesman stressed that "members will continue to carry out their duties as public representatives on behalf of their constituents, and Committees of the House will continue to meet throughout December and will resume meetings during January". All fine and dandy, but it totally misses the point. The Dail is the shop window for political activity in the country and the negative perception created among voters when the shutters are pulled down for 269 days every year is simply incalculable.

Of course, it perfectly suits the government of the day that the Oireachtas is seldom open for business. Despite its many flaws, the Dail is still the best place to put the government under scrutiny . . . a point illustrated by the fact that governments' approval ratings invariably rise during the three-month long summer adjournment. But there comes a point . . .

and surely we are long past it . . . when the concern that politics is being brought into disrepute is more important than securing political advantage.

The level of cynicism towards politics and politicians is dangerously high.

While a lot of that has to do with the scandals uncovered by the tribunals over the past decade, it seems inarguable that the Dail's dreadful sitting record is accentuating the problem.

The alternative government says it is committed to changing this. While we have to accept their bona fides . . . and Pat Rabbitte in particular does seem acutely aware of the damage the Dail's sitting schedule is doing to public confidence in politics . . . we have heard this from oppositions in the past. Once in government, they have then been seduced by the advantages of the status quo.

But, while politicians blissfully ignore public opinion on that issue, they seem to be all too happy to pander to it when it comes to the issue of crime. The reaction from politicians to Padraig Nally's acquittal was all too predictable. The case is dealt with elsewhere in length on these pages, but one has to wonder why politicians felt the need to comment at all. It is also entirely disingenuous to argue, as some politicians did, that the law needs to be changed to 'shift the balance' in favour of people who face an intruder in their home or on their property. Even aside from the dangers of meddling with the existing law, everybody knows that this has no relevance to the Padraig Nally case. But of course it sounds good to potential voters.

The absence of politicians willing to stand up and be counted and do and say the unpopular . . . but the correct . . . things is certainly not a new feature of political life here, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating.

Something is fundamentally wrong with the system that leaves children waiting for up to four years for psychiatric assessment when we have more than trebled spending on health in the past decade.

But is there any politician or political party really willing to face up to the tough questions raised by these two conflicting facts? Is there a politician or political party, for example, brave enough to question whether in recent years social partnership has delivered anything other than hefty pay increases to public servants for what is palpably nothing in return. Is social partnership, and the inflexibility it can create, one of the reasons behind the generally poor delivery of public services?

The political establishment will ignore these questions because there is only electoral downside by addressing them.

Because of our PR electoral system, neither of the two main political parties can afford to alienate a powerful vested interest group. But, make no mistake, it's the silent and less organised majority that pays the price.

However, amid all this gloom last week, it was none other than Martin Cullen that provided a glimmer of hope. The transport minister has his critics but, credit where credit is due, he is the first Irish politician not to pussyfoot around the plainly daft and wholly anti-consumer Shannon stopover arrangement . . . the ultimate example of a vested interest over-riding the common good. Cullen bluntly said the "archaic, outmoded and cosseted" stopover arrangement was blocking the development of at least 22 major new air routes between Ireland and the US.

Of course, politicians should have been saying this 15 years ago, but better late than never. A politician leading, rather than following . . . it couldn't catch on, could it?