For issues are the meat and drink of politics. Our leaders are not interested in the obsessions of the media, stuff like personalities, gimmicks, soundbites and hyped-up stories. Our leaders are people of substance who wish to discuss the issues.

They want to formulate new plans to tackle the issues and then articulate those plans in a concise manner, which can be easily digested by the electorate, while ensuring that none of the essence of the message is lost. It's no joke being a serious politician.

Take the issue of crime, which, according to last week's Millward Brown/IMS poll, is the second most pressing concern of the electorate. You might expect that this level of concern would prompt the main parties to study a complex issue in some detail, invest huge amounts in researching how best to tackle crime, and thus minimise its impact.

But research in this complex area might be a dangerous thing. What if it produced results at variance with the thoughts and fears of the Focus Group . . . that collection of individuals which represents the oracle in modernday politics? What if the answers weren't simple enough to be distilled into a soundbite? What if there was more to crime than throwing tough-guy shapes?

The campaign has provided some insights into how crime is treated by our serious politicians. For some reason, 2,000 is the magic number in the "war against crime" that will render the streets safe. Both electoral blocks are promising 2,000 extra gardai. The coalition says this 2,000 will be added to the 14,000 "serving members and trainees" to give a grand total of 16,000.

Except last December, Michael McDowell needed a soundbite in a hurry and pledged an extra 1,000 gardai to bring the force to 15,000, which implies the coalition's current promise is only for an extra 1,000, on top of McDowell's promised 1,000. (Mickser, for sheer comedy, we're going to miss you when you're gone. ) The opposition says that there are only 13,178 members serving at the moment and their promised 2,000 will bring the force to 15,000, even though the outgoing shower have already budgeted for 14,000, reducing the opposition's promised complement to 1,000. Confused? That's the way they like it.

Another idea to emerge from the extensive research into how best to tackle crime is to withhold remission from prisoners unless it is actually "earned" while inside. This is of particular interest to Fine Gael. For some reason, the party has failed to illustrate to the public how exactly this measure will impact on the incidence or seriousness of crime. Far more likely it is designed to sate a thirst for retribution, which is fine and dandy, but will do nothing to lower crime rates.

Tough guys like the party's Brian Hayes point out that prisoners will have to engage in "rehabilitation" if they are to be considered suitable to receive remission. The party hasn't budgeted for one extra prison space for this enlightened policy. It hasn't budgeted one cent for proper rehabilitation resources. It hasn't a clue about the implications for the policy behind the doors of what is effectively a dustbin for society's violent and dysfunctional elements.

But it sure as hell sounds tough, and that passes for tackling the issue.

There is one area of crime policy where actual research was commissioned by a politician of late. "Rebalancing the law" is a phrase in vogue, playing to the notion that the law is unbalanced in favour of the so-called criminal (all defendants are criminals in the current climate).

Last November, McDowell appointed a commission of eminent figures to study this area, particularly in relation to the right to silence. And when they completed their report, he said thank you very much and ignored their recommendations. Apparently, the results of the research weren't tough enough for a soundbite.

Yes, it's a relief that we are finally concentrating on the issues, and politicians' analytical approach to sorting these things out.