By his own account, Bertie Ahern was in a financial mess when his separation agreement was concluded in November 1993. In a remarkable television interview last Tuesday, he revealed that he had taken out a loan with AIB to cover his legal bills. A few of his friends wanted to organise a function which, Ahern said, would have raised £25,000 to £30,000, to help clear his debts. Ahern declined the offer . . . he didn't explain why . . . but said his solicitor, the late Gerry Brennan, persisted. "Unknown to me, he went to personal friends of mine. . . And they gave me £22,500 either Christmas Eve or St Stephen's Day in 1993." Seven of this group gave £2,500 each and one gave £5,000.

Nine months later, Ahern travelled to Manchester. A collection was made by a group of businesspeople and the then minister for finance travelled back to Dublin with stg£8,000 in his possession.

Three months after that event . . . in December 1994 . . . Ahern, who had just been elected leader of Fianna Fail, was in receipt of more money. Four friends in Dublin gave him £16,500.

So, in the space of a single year, Ahern had received the equivalent of 60,000 . . .

IR£39,000 and another stg£8,000. He said the two payments at Christmas 1993 and 1994 were loans, but the Manchester money was a gift. The different status of the payments . . . loans in Dublin but a gift in Manchester . . . meant no tax liability was incurred. Ahern continued to insist last week that he had done nothing wrong, had broken no tax law or breached no ministerial guidelines. But his colleagues in Fianna Fail were less confident. "I'm baffled and not sure what to think, " one seasoned Fianna Fail TD admitted.

Nobody has seen Bertie Ahern in such a vulnerable political position at any time since his election as Taoiseach in 1997. His reaction to the revelation in the Irish Times last Thursday week was poor and less than convincing. Over the first few days of the controversy, all that was clear was Ahern had received money to cover legal fees incurred during his marital separation. But there was a lack of clarity about the sums involved, the identity of the donors and whether the money came in the form of loans or gifts.

Last Sunday, Willie O'Dea and Seamus Brennan were sent out to defend Ahern. O'Dea said the Taoiseach had no case to answer. Brennan went further.

"He will give a lot of thought as to how he keeps faith with the ordinary people of Ireland." In fact, Ahern ultimately decided to put his case directly to the people, opting to bypass Dail Eireann, which was to resume on Wednesday after the summer recess. He agreed to an interview with RTE's Six One news on Tuesday evening.

No previous Taoiseach had exposed themselves in such a candid but deeply embarrassing manner. He spoke about the difficulties in his personal life and the "debt of honour" to his 12 friends.

The consensus among government and opposition politicians was that, with the television interview, Ahern had probably done enough to preserve his position.

Fine Gael and Labour had been uncertain about how to deal with the revelations.

Both parties were reluctant to go in too hard given the sensitivities surrounding Ahern's marital separation. They were conscious of the Taoiseach's strong personal standing. 'Tearful Ahern plays a blinder, ' one tabloid newspaper concluded in a front-page headline the morning after the RTE interview.

The performance left most Fianna Fail figures relatively satisfied. The general view was that public sympathy would shore up their leader's position. But there were several loose ends from the RTE interview, most notably a previously unknown payment received from a group of businessmen based in the UK.

Ahern 'fessed up to receiving money at a dinner in Manchester apparently in the belief that, as this was information in the possession of the Mahon tribunal, it might also end up being leaked to the media. "I don't want anyone saying I didn't give a full picture. I did a function in Manchester with a business organisation, nothing to do with politics or whatever, I was talking about the Irish economy. . . and I'd say there was about 25 people at that. I spent about four hours with them, dinner. I did questions and answers, " he said.

The significance of the Manchester payment grew during the 24 hours following Tuesday's television interview.

Michael McDowell opted to make no reference to the money when making his first remarks on the controversy. The PD leader based his comments on the two Dublin payments to fund Ahern's separation case legal bills.

"It seems to me that the Taoiseach should probably have declined such help even in the very difficult personal circumstances which he faced in 1993. However, I think it fair to say in the light of what the Taoiseach had stated that accepting such help was an honest error of judgement and was neither dishonest nor corrupt, " McDowell said.

But serious trouble was brewing over what Fine Gael called "a nixer". Liz O'Donnell spoke about the need for "clarification" over the Manchester money. Her remarks were quoted by opposition deputies as they sought to raise the matter in the Dail . . . in the Taoiseach's absence . . . on Thursday morning. McDowell, taking the Order of Business, conceded the need for a debate on the matter. Fianna Fail ministers were furious with the concession to the opposition. As they saw it, the Taoiseach was being boxed in.

Rambling and contradictory But Ahern had more immediate problems once more caused by his own actions.

He faced questions while on a constituency tour in Co Cavan on Thursday. He said he attended a function in Manchester as a private individual and not as minister for finance. "So no official script, not an official function, not in my capacity as a minister, paid my own way, spoke at the function, " Ahern said. It was a most unusual distinction to make and one which few of his Fianna Fail colleagues readily understood. In return for his attendance in Manchester, Ahern was given stg£8,000 which he lodged into his personal bank account in Dublin.

The rambling and contradictory doorstep interview only fuelled more controversy. McDowell had earlier spoken to Ahern but, having read a transcript of the Taoiseach's remarks in Cavan, the PD leader was clearly irked. "There are very significant matters of concern which are not completely put at rest by the facts now put in the public domain, " McDowell told reporters. He said the money was "a significant sum of money by any standard".

McDowell stopped short of calling for a head but his comments ratcheted up the political temperature. Unease in Fianna Fail increased dramatically. "I just wish he'd [Ahern] finish one sentence before he starts another sentence, " one Dublin TD said with no little exasperation at the Taoiseach's poor communications strategy.

In private, the party's backbench TDs were talking of the different possible scenarios, including Ahern's resignation, the departure of the PDs from government and even an early general election. Selfpreservation was setting in as many TDs started to evaluate the prospects of holding their seats should a damaged Ahern limp on as leader.

Brian Lenihan, who had battled for Ahern several times throughout the week, looked seriously uncomfortable on RTE's Prime Time on Thursday when presented with the guidelines which were in place when Ahern accepted his Manchester gift. The code stated: "The practice has been for ministers and ministers of state to accept relatively inexpensive gifts to mark occasions such as official openings etc, and not to accept expensive gifts or, when presented, to return them."

Brian Cowen made his first intervention on Friday morning. In a change in strategy from earlier last week when RTE was the medium to answer questions, now the Dail was "the forum of accountability". Wait for Tuesday's debate, was Cowen's mantra as he defended his boss.

The finance minister fell back on the longstanding view that Ahern was a straight and honest politician. To suggest otherwise, Cowen argued in defensive tones, "strained credibility". But Cowen failed to answer the obvious question . . . would you as a minister take such a payment if it was offered? Several other ministers also sidestepped the same question. By teatime on Friday, the finance minister was grappling with a curious formulation of words.

The Taoiseach "was not incorrect in taking it", Cowen suggested.

As some of those who attended the Manchester function started to speak publicly, more problems emerged. In direct conflict with Ahern's version, John Kennedy, a businessman who was at the event, said Ahern had not spoken at the private dinner. He confirmed that a collection had been made for the then finance minister which left open the grubby image of Ahern leaving the Four Seasons Hotel in Manchester holding sterling notes and bank cheques.

Ahern's former adviser Martin Mansergh, in a radio interview on Friday, used some Latin, de minimis, to minimise seriousness of the Taoiseach's behaviour. The word is derived from de minimis non curat praetor which translates as 'the commander does not bother with the smallest things'.

But the situation facing Ahern this weekend is far from trivial.

At times of political crisis, politicians often turn their anger on matters that are not central to the crisis itself. In a section of Fianna Fail this weekend, that anger is being directed at the PDs. Michael McDowell is seen as having gone too far with his comments on Thursday afternoon.

Dermot Ahern said he was "somewhat surprised" at what McDowell said.

Former junior minister Ned O'Keeffe . . .

who is no lover of the PDs, or of Bertie Ahern . . . argued that Fianna Fail could continue on in government without the PDs.

But so far those are minority viewpoints. Most party backbenchers privately hold Ahern responsible for the mess the government is now in. Over the last 10 days of political controversy, Ahern has had seven opportunities to clear the air . . . a radio interview with Clare FM; a doorstep interview in Kilrush; a statement in Government Buildings; a written media statement last weekend; a lengthy RTE television interview; a Dail contribution; and another doorstep interview in Co Cavan. Seven opportunities and yet still this weekend Fianna Fail figures are hoping some clarity . . . and finality . . . may emerge when the Taoiseach speaks in the Dail on Tuesday.

In 1998, Ahern told his biographers, Ken Whelan and Eugene Masterson: "One thing about me, and anyone who knows me knows this is true, is that I'm not interested in wealth. I associate wealth with trouble and I don't really need that.

Once I walk that road over there, have a few jars, talk to the guys, go down to Tolka and Croker: that makes me happy."

The revelations of the last 10 days have now shattered that 'man of the people' persona. Ahern's reputation has at the very least been tarnished. His judgement has been called into question.

In the Dail on Tuesday, he will have to show that that is the limit of the damage done. His speech, one of the most important of his political career, will be directed at several audiences. He has to convince his Fianna Fail colleagues that he has not become a political and electoral liability.

He has to convince Michael McDowell to keep the PDs as part of the coalition arrangements. And he has to convince the public that the three payments in 1993/94 are the limit of the money he has received.

A failure to convince and Ahern's days are numbered.

A humble apology may be enough this time but if any further revelations emerge, they will finish him off completely.

THE QUESTIONS AHERN STILL HAS TO ANSWER THE AMOUNT According to the 'Irish Times', the Mahon tribunal is investigating that Bertie Ahern received between /50,000 and /100,000. The Taoiseach initially described the figure as "off the wall" while up to last weekend Fianna Fail sources insisted that the newspaper was "incorrect" and that the sums involved were "significantly less than /50,000". We now know that Ahern received IR£49,000 (just over /60,000) on three separate dates in 1993/94.

GIFT OR LOAN?

Initially Fianna Fail claimed that Ahern had repaid some of the people who had given him money in 1993/94. This was untrue. According to the version of events provided by Ahern last Tuesday, he has 12 outstanding loans on which no interest has ever been paid. He called them a "debt of honour". There is no documentation available to confirm the exact nature of the understanding between Ahern and those giving him the money in 1993/94.

TAXIf the Dublin money received in two tranches in 1993 and 1994 had not been classified as a long-term loan, Ahern would have had gift tax liabilities. The reverse is true of the Manchester payments received in September 1994. By describing that money as a gift, Ahern sidestepped any tax issues. Why then did the Taoiseach tell Pat Rabbitte in the Dail last Wednesday, "I paid capital gains tax and gift tax. It is not appropriate for me to spell out what I paid, but I assure the deputy that I did so following advice." If Ahern had no tax obligations from the Dublin and Manchester payments, what then was he talking about?

SAVINGS Ahern said on Tuesday that he had saved IR£50,000 between the late 1980s and the conclusion of his separation legal case in November 1993. It remains unclear if this money was saved from his salary and expenses as a TD and minister or if the money was derived from other sources.

BANK ACCOUNT Ahern said that other than a joint account controlled by his wife, he did not have a bank account in the late 1980s. He told the Dail on Wednesday that he only opened a bank account in his own name after November 1993. It is unclear how he managed his finances without a bank account in his own name. It also remains unclear if Ahern had access to other banking facilities.

MANCHESTER Despite John Kennedy's intervention last Friday, details remain confused as to why Ahern was at a private dinner at the Four Seasons Hotel in Manchester.

Among the questions to be answered in the Dail this week include: How was the event promoted? Had Fianna Fail a role in the event? Did Ahern actually speak at the dinner? How was the collection for him organised? Did he leave with a single cheque or with cash and cheques? Why did he feel it necessary to check ethics guidelines some years after 1993, and what prompted that action?