WILLIE KEALY and
JODY CORCORAN
MOST people think the Taoiseach was wrong to take money, but they do not want him to resign, according to a comprehensive nationwide telephone poll for the Sunday Independent.

The public were more critical of the Taoiseach for taking money from his Dublin businessmen friends than for taking stg£8,000 in Manchester, where they perceive that he had at least the excuse of being paid for doing a job.

The public do not believe the "dig out" was a loan, or as the Taoiseach says a "debt of honour".

Nor do they believe him when he says he was not acting in his capacity as Minister for Finance when he took stg£8,000 in Manchester.

Besides having no desire to see Ahern go, public trust in him is unaltered.

Nonetheless a certain cynicism is evident in that many responded that they had a low level of trust in him - and politicians in general - to start with. The public did not think the Taoiseach was wrong to bring the details of his marriage separation into the public arena, believing that he had to do this to defend himself.

The biggest loser in the poll, which was carried out on Friday night and yesterday morning, seems to be the Tanaiste, Michael McDowell: a majority of respondents are not satisfied with the way he has handled the affair.

These are the results of an expanded telephone poll in which 500 households were contacted at random by professional market researchers using questions prepared by the Sunday Independent editorial team.

The poll findings coincide with today's revelation that the Taoiseach has paid back the €50,000 "dig out" money he received from business friends, together with €40,000 interest, ahead of his

ANALYSIS

statement to the Dail on Tuesday. We also reveal today that Mr Ahern intends making a much fuller statement that he did last Tuesday and that he will acknowledge the wrong he has done and express contrition.

When the public were asked if they thought the Taoiseach was right or wrong to take €50,000 from a group of businessmen, 61 per cent said he was wrong. Disapproval by women rose to 67 and by city dwellers to 66.

Among the comments of those polled were: "Charlie robbed the Irish people - if this is the extent of Bertie Ahern's 'crimes against the Irish people', it is petty."

Another said: "We all turn to friends in a time of need, these people are so rich it is probably was chump change."

People were less critical of the Manchester money - the majority who thought it was wrong amounted to 58 per cent and again it was women (62 per cent) and city dwellers (63 per cent) who were most outraged.

"It was a nixer, I find that easier to understand than very generous loans that do not need repaying," said one Dublin man.

"Business men get paid to speak all the time at functions - Bertie may have exploited his position, but big deal? Gay Byrne used to say that there were no free lunches - you have to ask what £8000 bought," said another.

"Pass the begging bowl - it is hardly becoming of a minister, but it is not exactly a major crime," said a Dublin woman.

Asked if the Taoiseach did anything wrong in appointing some of these businessmen who helped him out financially to State boards afterwards, 57 per cent said yes. Typical comments included: "It looks like jobs for the boys and Bertie paying off his loan in kind."

Fifty five per cent of those polled (60 per cent among women and 64 among urban dwellers) do not accept the Taoiseach's contention that he did not attend the Manchester dinner in his capacity as Minister for Finance.

"Priests, schoolteachers, the gardai are never off duty, nor are ministers," said a Dublin man. "Well, they were not paying to see a shuffling, stuttering, mumbler in an anorak," said another man.

But it seems Mr Ahern really stretched credibility when he claimed that the money from the "dig out" was a loan and a "debt of honour".

Seventy seven per cent overall said it was a gift (that rose to 80 per cent among men only) and 68 per cent overall rejected the "debt of honour" tag, (71 per cent males and 71 per cent city dwellers).

"He has had 13 years to prove it was a debt of honour, he waited so long that some of the lenders are now dead," said a Dublin man..

Asked if the Taoiseach was right to reveal details of his marriage separation in this controversy, 58 per cent said "yes" (62 per cent males and 55 per cent females). Rural dwellers (61 per cent) were slightly more understanding. But there were many who were not impressed.

"His Fair City performance, crying into his beer, bemoaning the sad plight of a cash-strapped politician pulling down a TD's salary and plethora of expenses - it was amateur dramatics," said a Dublin man.

"His performance on television was morally bankrupt, he cried crocodile tears, and embarrassed his family while trying to excuse himself for demeaning the office of a minister by looking for hand-outs," said a rural woman.

But a Dublin woman said: "If he had refused to explain, he would have been roasted for not giving a fair and frank account - and now he is insensitive because he did?"

Asked if they trusted the Taoiseach less now than they did before they learned he had taken money, 57 per cent said "no" (men and country dwellers registered 61 per cent).

"There may be a touch of the Haughey about this, but the amounts are so comparatively small it is almost reassuring. If he was being dishonest, surely he would have made it worth his while," said a rural woman.

"We all exploit our positions, friendships, to get discounts, help, better deals - why do we think that politicians would be any better?" said another Dublin man.

"It was hard to believe that while all his cronies Flynn and Haughey were helping themselves, that he was sitting pretty with his hands in his anorak," said another.

"He was Charles Haughey's protege, he looked for corporate sponsorship for his separation, and is not surprised when his hand is greased with large sums for appearing at a dinner. Why would anyone have trusted him in the first place?," one Dublin man said.

Despite everything, the public does not show an appetite for seeing the Taoiseach leave office. Sixty five per cent do not want him to resign, a figure that is consistent in all categories but rises to 68 per cent among urban dwellers.

"You would have to believe that other politicians are any better," said one Dubliner.

"Clinton didn't resign over Monica L, nor has Blair resigned over going to war with no basis, so borrowing a few bob from friends, and doing an odd corporate dinner is hardly grounds for leaving office," said a Dublin woman.

"This may not be up to the public, it will depend whether the PDs and Independents can stomach being in office, under such controversy, with such hypocrisy," said another.

"The sums involve may not seem large, but in context these amounts would have bought you a house back then. Is it a case that we will excuse him because he did not reach the dizzying heights of corruption of his former boss Charles Haughey?" said another Dublin woman.

"No, he should not resign, and even though I do not trust him, he is the best of a bad lot," a country woman said.

Sixty per cent of those polled were not satisfied with the way Mr McDowell has handled the affair to date. Men (65 per cent) and city dwellers (66 per cent) were especially critical.

In contrast, 55 per cent were satisfied with the role of the Opposition, with women (60 per cent) and country dwellers (59 per cent) most satisfied.

"His U-turn showed that he has no objectivity and is a slave to the fickleness of public opinion," said a Dublin man.

"He behaved last week like a political opportunist of the worst kind, why would you trust a man that can do an about-turn so easily?" said a Dublin woman.

"McDowell must have splinters he sat on the fence for so long last week," a country man said.

In contrast, satisfaction with the performance of the Opposition was higher among women (60 per cent compared with 48 per cent of men) and rural dwellers (59 per cent compared with 46 per cent in urban areas).

The comments on this question were varied, which is to be expected given that they come from a a public that does not believe the Taoiseach, does not approve of what he has done, but does not want him to resign.

"They behaved like rabid dogs after Bertie Ahern's bones. Pathetic display," said a country woman.

However, another said: "I'm surprised that they have been so muted - it is like Fianna Fail is the only show in town with teeth."

"They have appeared sanctimonious and smug, and it just comes across as insincere and politically opportune. This is a storm in a tea-cup," a country woman said.

"Enda Kenny was acting like Pope Benedict talking about the 'seriousness' of the charge," a country man said.

"I think they have played it well, letting Bertie stumble and stammer, pointing out each of the inconsistencies one by one, showing up the lies about lies, and destroying his image as a man of the people," a rural woman said.

"The Opposition do not seem like a viable alternative," a country man said.