In American politics an event akin to Bertie Ahern's televised interview with Bryan Dobson would have generated a lot of work for private pollsters and research organisations working for the political parties, writes Noel Whelan.
If a sitting US president or a senior senator was about to give an interview which could literally determine his or her very political survival then the focus groups and audience reaction panels would have been assembled in advance. As the interview was broadcast they would have been asked to twist a dial-o-meter up or down in accordance with their instant emotional response to what was said. Within seconds of the programme ending researchers would be conducting detailed telephone interviews with thousands of voters, selected as a representative sample of all the electorate, assessing their response.
The data garnered from this research would then be graphed and tabulated and within hours the political strategists and party managers would be presenting reports to their party leaders and spokespersons analysing how the interview had played with the public.
Irish political parties don't yet have the resources for this type of instant response measurement. Our politicians have to rely upon less sophisticated but tried and tested means of gauging the public mood.
There was much talk of the public temperature last Tuesday night and Wednesday morning as politicians and media chatted to friends, to spouses or to anyone outside the media/political bubble and tried to figure out what the public reaction to the interview was. By the time the national focus group that is Liveline went on air early on Wednesday afternoon, the consensus appeared to be that Bertie Ahern's interview had gone well for him and ultimately he would ride out this latest crisis.
The explanation for the original payments, although belated, was detailed and lengthy and appeared to have met the public's need for an explanation. The fact that the interview was at times emotionally charged seemed to have aroused the Irish public's basic sense of decency. The explanation that the Taoiseach had received the money from 12 friends at a time when he was in bad financial straits after his separation was a difficult and embarrassing revelation for him. However, the public appears to have concluded there was nothing corrupt involved, and any ethical or tax transgressions which might arise were more likely to prove venial than serious.
This sense that the public response was sympathetic gave comfort to the Government side and also tempered the initial Opposition reaction when the Dáil resumed. Although the Opposition might have continued next week with detailed questioning about the tax and ethics code, it is likely that had there been no other developments the public would have moved on from the payments story within a few days and some other political issue or event would have emerged to push it into the background.
However, we will never know whether that would have been the case - things have changed dramatically. The Taoiseach, who had been winded by the first round of this payments revelation, has taken a more serious punch as politicians and the media have begun to focus on the payment he received 13 years ago for addressing a business event in Manchester. The difficulty for Bertie Ahern is that the public, who appear to have been prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on the original payments from his friends, has not been able to move on. This new story about the Manchester money has held their interest and again they are awaiting a fuller explanation.
The delay in dealing with the original story did hurt the Taoiseach politically. A vacuum developed in which suspicions that something very wrong had occurred were allowed to germinate. This of course was precisely what the person or persons who selectively leaked that story in the first place hoped to achieve. The extent of that political damage had been contained as a result of the Taoiseach's interview with Bryan Dobson. Now the pressure is on again.
Last weekend, any political strategist worth his or her salt would have advised that the best way to address the story which appeared on the front page of this newspaper eight days ago would have been to issue an immediate comprehensive statement setting out all the known facts and even over-compensating in the level of detail.
Sometimes politicians don't or cannot follow that type of advice. Sometimes that is because the truth could be more damaging than avoiding the issue. That did not turn out to be the case in this instance. Neither was the delay in dealing comprehensively with the original payment story due to a failure on the Taoiseach's part to appreciate its significance. Shrewd political analyst that he is, he would have seen immediately the potential political consequences which might flow from the original story. The Taoiseach's five-day delay in responding fully is more likely to have been due to the rawness and sensitivity of the financial issues involved and, to a lesser extent, to legal considerations touching on the secrecy of tribunal investigations.
This weekend political advisers will again advise complete openness about the Manchester money story. The more comprehensive the Taoiseach's account is about the donors, the nature of the event in Manchester and the context in which the money was received, the greater will be his prospect of surviving this crisis. The sooner that full explanation is given the better. That, of course, is assuming that the truth about this payment is not even more damaging.
If there is a bona fide explanation for this Manchester payment, then, although public patience on the point will be stretched, the Taoiseach may be able to ride out this latest storm. If not then we are set for some very dramatic political weeks ahead.