THE Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, can take comfort from the findings of today's Irish Times/MRBI opinion poll showing a marked increase in the level of satisfaction with the Government, a rise in support for Fianna Fail and minimal gains for the Opposition in the wake of the most controversial Budget in recent times.
Though he failed to generate the expected propeller boost for the Coalition with the biggest giveaway Budget in the State's history, Mr McCreevy will claim, with some justification, that he has identified a new political constituency with his proposals on tax individualisation which, arguably, could have been successfully sold to a changed electorate.
This thesis is borne out by the findings of some detailed questions relating to individualisation in today's poll. Mr McCreevy proposed, in the Budget, to treat each income-earner as an individual, with the effect of giving a higher tax band to double-income over single-income couples.
Due to threats from the Independent TDs and a virtual revolt from Fianna Fail backbenchers, he was forced to counter-balance this measure with the announcement of a £3,000 tax allowance to couples where one spouse stays at home.
Some 52 per cent of voters, among them 45 per cent of Fianna Fail supporters, are dissatisfied with the Budget presented by Mr McCreevy; 40 per cent, including 50 per cent of Fianna Fail supporters, are satisfied; and some 8 per cent have no opinion. Yet, the ratings of the Government, Fianna Fail and even the Coalition leaders show they are not being blamed.
The issue of individualisation is the primary reason given by voters for dissatisfaction with the Budget.
When the 52 per cent who are dissatisfied were asked their reasons, the breakdown is: individualisation, 38 per cent; not enough for the poor and lower-paid, 27 per cent; all for the rich and well-off, 12 per cent; not enough for old-age pensioners, 12 per cent; tax too high/unfair/ more bands, 12 per cent; increase in cigarettes, 5 per cent; farming issues/prices, 4 per cent; healthcare/hospitals, 3 per cent; children's allowance should be increased, 3 per cent; shortage of childcare/too expensive, 3 per cent; had to backtrack/do a Uturn, 2 per cent; have to wait for social welfare increase, 2 per cent; housing, 1 per cent; other reasons and don't know, 7 per cent.
The concern about individualisation is most prevalent in Dublin (44 per cent), in ABC1 households (49 per cent) and in the 25-34 and 35-49 age groups (43 per cent each respectively).
Some 38 per cent of Fianna Fail, 34 per cent of Fine Gael, 42 per cent of Labour, 63 per cent of PD and 47 per cent of Others are dissatisfied with the issue.
And, in a new categorisation, 42 per cent of double-income couples and 43 per cent of single-income households disagree with individualisation.
The sociological change in the electorate, however, is demonstrated in a further question on the principle of individualisation. When asked if they were for the introduction of individualisation, where there would be different tax allowances for single-income couples and couples with two incomes, there is a three-way split in opinion. A small majority of 37 per cent of voters are in favour of individualisation; 35 per cent are against; 17 per cent don't know enough to make a decision and 11 per cent have no opinion. The poll also shows that 55 per cent of double-income couples, 34 per cent of single-income households and 31 per cent of voters in no paid employment agree with individualisation. An equal 37 per cent of males and females support the concept; 36 per cent of males and 34 per cent of females are against it.
The move is most strongly favoured by 40 per cent in Dublin. The breakdown on individualisation in the parties is: Fianna Fail 42 per for and 31 per cent against; Fine Gael 35 per cent for and 42 per cent against; Labour 36 per cent for and 37 per cent against; PDs 49 per cent for and 34 per cent against; and Others 29 per cent for and 40 per cent against.
The overall findings on the individualisation issue would suggest that if Mr McCreevy had prepared the ground for his tax initiative and subsequently explained and sold it, he might have gained sufficient support to implement his original proposal.