US economist Thomas Sowell once wrote that "the first lesson of economics is scarcity. There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

In an ideal world, it wouldn't be true. But we live, sadly, in a far-from ideal world. And overlooking the first lesson of economics is partly why Ireland is in the mess it currently is.

The last general election campaign was the most obvious example of that. Every political party made tens of billions of euro worth of promises that would not have been affordable even if the world economy hadn't collapsed.

Sadly, there are few votes in giving voters the blunt and unedited truth.

Look at the Greens. They fought the last general election campaign promising Luas lines in Galway, Cork and elsewhere – barmy stuff that was never going to become reality. They won six Dáil seats.

Earlier this month, the same party fought the local elections, having for the previous year quite clearly put the national interest before the party interest by taking a host of very difficult decisions to address the huge hole in the public finances. The Greens lost all but three of their council seats. And the moral of the story is...?

Back in 1987, Charlie Haughey knew that when and if he returned as Taoiseach, he would have to oversee huge cutbacks to get the public finances back in order. But did Fianna Fáil fight the election on that basis? Of course not. They ran adverts proclaiming that "health cuts hurt the old, the sick and handicapped" and talked in vague terms about growth-generated spending increases (sound familiar?).

Fianna Fáil's strategy in opposition during the recession of the 1980s bears an uncanny resemblance to the approach Fine Gael and Labour have taken since the financial and economic meltdown began – oppose every cutback, champion every protest movement and keep your own proposals about how to deal with the crisis vague enough to avoid offending any sector of society.

It worked for Fianna Fáil in opposition between 1983 and 1987, with the party constantly getting opinion-poll support above 50% and ultimately returning to power in the general election of February 1987. And, unquestionably, it has worked for Fine Gael and Labour over the past year. The two parties look certain to form the next government after the next general election.

No harm in that, you might say. Time for a change etc. But the fact is, we know very little about what this new coalition would do when it takes over the reins of power. On most of the major issues, Fine Gael and Labour have adopted diametrically opposed positions. Of course, that won't stop the two parties forming a government, but it raises serious questions about what type of government it would be.

What, for example, will it do with the banks? Labour wants to nationalise them. But what then? Nationalising doesn't solve the problem of capitalisation. Fine Gael's plan is definitely more comprehensive. But will Fine Gael, of all parties, proceed with a plan that will force bondholders to take a hit at a time when the state will have to borrow tens of billions of euro on the international markets? Would it also follow through with its proposal to wind down Anglo-Irish Bank against the advice of bank director and former Fine Gael finance minister Alan Dukes?

Will the government go with Fine Gael's plan for public-sector reform and pay freezes or with Labour's proposals to target public servants' earning over €200,000? And how will the new government come up with €4bn in savings for 2010??Or do they (and Labour in particular) even believe this level of cutbacks is needed?

Will the new government keep tax rates as they are, as Fine Gael has advocated, or introduce Labour's proposal of a new 48% tax rate? What about a property tax?

Even on the issues on which the opposition have been united, there are questions. Would the new coalition, for example, reverse the public-sector levy that both parties so strongly opposed? Would it reintroduce universal medical cards for over-70s regardless of how wealthy they are?

Take it as read that they wouldn't. I would bet a hefty amount that, a little like Fianna Fáil in 1987, Fine Gael and Labour would change little if any of the decisions made over the past year. I would also guess that – like Fianna Fáil with the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the 1980s – they would stick with the Nama proposal they have so consistently derided on the basis that it is the least worst option.

Whether I am right or wrong is beside the point. The reality is that we are fast coming to the point where we need to know the answers to the questions above. It might unfortunately be a few years too late, but the government has set out its stall – for better or worse. We, the electorate, have the right to demand that the government-in-waiting does the same. For political reasons, of course they won't want to do so. But the economic crisis is so grave that, for once, the 'first rule of economics' has to take precedence over the 'first rule of politics'.

scoleman@tribune.ie