THE MOST recent political poll confirms the general belief that coalition politics are here to stay. In that case, we have to give serious attention to the professed preference of both Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats to create a joint government next yearn if the election arithmetic allows it.

Certainly, at first sight there is an apparent convergence of belief and policies among both parties, notably the stock in trade promise of tax and spending cuts common to right wing opposition parties everywhere.

But it is time to delve deeper and to question FF on its attitude to some of the most sacred of PD dogmas which it is presenting to the electorate as its primary purpose in government.

Time and again in recent years, Ms Mary Harney and Mr Michael McDowell have challenged the basic policy of social partnership that, underpins the economic policy of both the present coalition and its FF Labour predecessor. Neither has a good word to say for the policy and both deny any beneficial effects either on jobs, economic growth or social progress arising from its operation over nine years.

Clearly, the PDs want an end to this consensus approach. The media commentators who most admire the PDs share their antipathy to social consensus and insist that it has been a failure.

We must presume therefore that Ms Harney will require basic changes to this approach in any new government her party proposes to set up with FF. Surely, we are entitled to know what Deputy Ahern makes of all this? After all, he can claim legitimately that he is one of the primary creators of the policy in the original Programme for National Partnership in 1987.

In his 7 1/2 years as Minister to December, 1994, he held on vigorously to the policy and clearly believes as I, my Labour colleagues and our current partners do, that it is one of the pillars of our current economic success and the improved living standards we enjoy at present.

Is he going to allow Ms Harney and Mr McDowell to undermine, denigrate and ultimately destroy so critical a feature of an economic success story that they persistently refuse even to acknowledge?

Of course, smaller parties in coalitions proclaim policies that they know cannot be fully pursued in government. But this is no ordinary policy. It is fundamental to the way any government to be elected next year will go about the country's business. It cannot be left to the vagaries of inter party dealings in the aftermath of an inconclusive election.

We are entitled to know from Ms Harney if, in negotiations in the formation of a government, she will continue in her professed hostility to social consensus. And we are equally entitled to know from Mr Ahern if he will rebuff, as he must, any erosion of confidence in this sound approach that has brought such gains to our country.

Neither party can fudge on this. They are poles apart on this policy and their very basic divergence is surely one of the reasons that their previous attempt at coalition was such a dismal economic and social failure.

One specific issue comes to mind as a potential flashpoint. All recent Irish Governments have tried to be generous in their provision for elderly citizens.

An article in a British newspaper this week highlighted the contrast between Irish State benefits for pensioners with the position in the UK. It points out that 75,000 pensioners from the UK have made their home here in recent years.

Our State contributory pension for a married couple ranges from £126 to £134 compared with less than £100 across the water. We also have various extra benefits such as free travel, free electricity allowance and phone rental which are not available to pensioners living in the UK.

I mention the point because invariably it has been pensioners who have been the first to feel the chill winds of austerity when governments of the PD ilk have come into office in other countries. Michael McDowell's admiration for the policies followed in New Zealand is well known.

PENSIONERS and the poor found themselves so affected by benefit cuts there that the churches had to resort to Sunday morning food banks to help them out. UK pensioners have had their living standards cut dramatically in the 18 years of Tory rule while in the United States the various Medicaid programmes for the elderly were first on Speaker Gingrich's list when it came to budget time.

These are the models the PDs aim to follow. Cuts in benefit are the logical consequence of a policy that substitutes confrontation for consensus.

What has Mr Ahern to say to this? FF introduced some of the excellent benefits available to our seniors. Will they trade them to assuage the PDs' obsession with spending cuts?

No doubt Ms Harney will accuse me of scare mongering. She has a simple option. Let her say that benefits such as those enjoyed by our pensioners will remain intact if she gets into office. It has not been so in countries that have abandoned social consensus in recent years, countries which she expects us to emulate.

We know the right wing agenda that the PDs wish to pursue in government. What we need to know is how far FF is prepared to be dragged in that direction in its quest for a coalition.