We still don’t know what Simon Harris stands for – the question is, does he?

whether he liked them very much himself, and if this was slightly behind his resignation.

But if once upon a time Varadkar seemed to be a John Bruton-style Christian democrat — that is, someone who backed the free market, within limits, and was broadly socially conservative — I haven’t a clue what Harris has ever stood for, not when he entered politics, not today.

When Harris first ran for election to the Dáil in 2011, he said he was a staunch pro-lifer and would not tolerate repeal of the Eighth Amendment.

By the very next year he had completely changed his mind, and showed no sympathy whatsoever for his previous point of view.

It is one thing to change your stance on something, but when a person shows no proper understanding of what they seemed to believe until yesterday, you wonder how sincerely they ever believed it. Then you wonder how sincerely they believe whatever it is they are espousing today.

At least when Varadkar changed his mind on social issues, he did not develop a hostile attitude towards those who were once his allies.

He might have celebrated the introduction of same-sex marriage and repeal of the Eighth Amendment, but he was never aggressive or gloating about it. When the abortion bill was going through the Dáil in the second half of 2018, Harris was often very hostile towards pro-life TDs.

On Thursday’s Morning Ireland, Fine Gael junior minister Neale Richmond was asked what Harris would bring to the leadership of Fine Gael that was different from Varadkar, and all he could really say was “a different type of energy”. How inspiring.

This is why Fine Gael needed a leadership contest, not a coronation. We are about to get a new taoiseach and he has not had to tell anyone — not even his own party — what he stands for, or where he will take both party and the country.

Presumably he will do that shortly, though whatever he says is likely to consist of Miss World-style platitudes.

In a leadership contest we might have had a proper debate about issues of real substance.

We might have had one candidate urging more tax cuts and another more public spending. They might have set out in concrete terms what they intend doing for those who get up early in the morning.

One candidate might have said it was time to withdraw the hate crime bill, while the other may have urged us to press full-steam ahead.

We might have had open reflection on the meaning of the two referendum defeats and whether Fine Gael

We are about to get a new taoiseach — and he has not told anyone, not even his own party, what he stands for or where he will take the country