For a man who recently asked Brian Cowen if he had "no shame", there is something utterly shameless about Eamon Gilmore and Labour's decision to oppose the government's ban on carted stag hunting.

Labour claims it is opposing the bill because: it favours tougher regulation of the operation of the Ward Union hunt; the bill is deficient; and (best of all), there are far more urgent issues of animal welfare that John Gormley should be dealing with such as abandoned horses.

The last argument is simply ludicrous – literally any bill, bar presumably legislation to prevent the end of the world, could be opposed on the basis there are "more urgent issues" to be addressed.

The first part of the argument would be legitimate, if it wasn't for the fact that it is totally at odds with Labour's previous position on the matter.

Gilmore, along with his two predecessors as Labour leader, is on the record publicly stating his opposition to blood sports, including stag hunting.

Less than three years ago, he put down a Dáil question asking Gormley if, in view of the fact that the stags hunted by the Ward Union are "farmed domesticated deer, and therefore not wild, he will withhold the issuing of a licence in 2007 under the Wildlife Act 1976 permitting stag hunting".

Other Labour TDs to go on the record opposing stag hunting or blood sports include Tommy Broughan, Joe Costello, Liz McManus and Jan O'Sullivan. Michael D Higgins, meanwhile, is a former chairperson of the Irish Council Against Blood Sports.

But that was then and this is now and it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that this u-turn is an utterly cynical move by Labour to build on its current poll ratings and woo support in rural areas – not least in Dublin North and Meath East where it has high hopes of winning seats. One wonders was the decision based on focus-group research which all political parties so slavishly follow.

Whatever way the decision was reached, it's difficult to disagree with John Gormley's assessment last week that "for the Labour party, no principle is too cherished to be abandoned if they think there are votes in it for them".

It has been clear for some time that Labour, under Gilmore, is blatantly ripping off the old Fianna Fáil opposition manual: oppose every government measure, say 'yes' to every interest group and take the populist line on all major issues – witness Labour's stance on the banks and the Croke Park deal.

The approach was perfectly captured during the ridiculous furore back in October 2008 over the withdrawal of automatic medical cards for pensioners. An angry crowd had gathered at the Dáil to protest the decision and, as the protest organisers gave their speeches, there was literally a queue of Labour TDs standing on the steps of the speakers' truck, patiently waiting their turn with the microphone. It was like something out of the Haughey era, only this time it was Labour, and not unprincipled Fianna Fáil, deputies playing to the gallery.

As it did for Fianna Fáil in the past, it has worked a treat. Successive opinion polls have shown Labour to have at least twice the level of support it won in the last general election. Gilmore is by far the most popular leader.

The party is guaranteed to be part of the next government and is very likely at least to replicate its outstanding 'Spring Tide' performance of 1992.

But it is ironic that the electorate is flocking to a party that is adopting the same populist approach taken by Bertie Ahern's governments with such disastrous consequences for the country.

There is no questioning Gilmore's brilliance as a politician – he is the best pure political operator since Ahern – and there is serious strength and depth in the likes of Pat Rabbitte, Ruairí Quinn, Joan Burton, Brendan Howlin, Seán Sherlock, Ciaran Lynch and Róisín Shortall.

All those, and others, have the ability to do an outstanding job in cabinet. But the question has to be asked if Labour isn't willing to hold the line on stag hunting – in political and electoral terms a pretty unimportant issue – how can it be expected to take the really difficult decisions that inevitably await the party when it enters government after the next general election?

Will it have the stomach, for example, to introduce a property tax or water charges – politically contentious decisions but ones that every economic expert in the country and abroad believes are necessary? Will it be able to say 'no' to the interest groups its TDs now daily walk out of the gates of Leinster House to support? Can it lead, as well as follow?

Given the calibre of the politicians involved, the hunch is that it will be able to do so, but it would be reassuring to see some evidence of that.

On one level, what Gilmore is doing is completely understandable. He sees a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to decisively realign Irish politics and is going for it, bald-headed.

But the danger for his party is that in trying to become a catch-all party, Gilmore will create expectations among the electorate that will be impossible to meet when it does inevitably get into government. The worry for the country is that he might genuinely think there is some painless and straightforward way for the country out of the current mess.

scoleman@tribune.ie