The Sunday Tribune survey shows that while four out of 10 people think it was okay for him to get half a Merc, a majority would like to see him living in half a house.

That's what it boils down to.

A minister of state position for less than six months they'll allow him to have, but at the same time they want him to pay back at least some of what his father gained in handouts from rich people.

The issue an opinion poll cannot address is how the restorative payment could be made. Since a few months on a junior minister's salary isn't going to hugely improve his finances, how's he going to pay back even a fraction of what his father took?

Presumably, because Seán Haughey is (a) honest, (b) modest in lifestyle and (c) hasn't been earning big dosh doing reality TV shows on the side, he'd have to sell or remortgage his house on the edge of the Haughey estate in order to get the cash.

Well, tough, the general public seems to be saying. They're not suggesting that Minister Haughey in any way carries his father's guilt, they just don't like the idea of him sitting pretty in a house built on his father's ill-gotten gains. They resent like hell the fact that all the Haughey offspring seem, to some extent, to have been set up on handouts.

Macauley said there was nothing so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodic fits of self-righteousness. Begging his posthumous pardon, there is: the Irish public in one of its periodic fits of self-righteousness.

We dress up begrudgery as morality and have got hopelessly addicted to blame and punishment. The Red Queen in Alice has nothing on us: "Off with his head" is our national cry. (Or off with her head. We're an equal opportunities executioner. ) And if the central figure is dead, then off with the nearest related head.

Off-with-his-head self-righteousness is comforting, but impractical, when it comes to the consequences of the Moriarty report.

For starters, who is Seán Haughey to pay the money back to? His father made his own arrangements to pay off the Revenue Commissioners, and Ben Dunne and Dermot Desmond don't seem to be sending any invoices to the Haughey family. The reality is that none of the rich people who gave some of their walking-around money to Charles Haughey ever wanted it back. Of course, not all of them are still alive, but suggesting that Seán Haughey (or any of his siblings or mother) should divvy up money to send to the estate of a dead Saudi sheikh is a bit of a reach. So who would gain from a payback?

Because some members of Haughey's family were always seen as arrogant and churlish, it's understandable that members of the general public would like to have them humbled, financially.

However, it's also worth asking if the least arrogant of them - Seán Haughey - has not already paid for any financial gain he got from being 'Son of '.

From his earliest days in politics, he was excluded from the circle of the knowing, the conspiratorial and the monied around his father - but also excluded from other, outside, groups because they assumed anybody related to Haughey senior was tarred with the same brush. Through dogged diligence, Seán Haughey built up a career for himself, never knowing when or how often a gale force CJ-generated controversy would side-swipe him. A nation that prides itself on its fairmindedness never gave him the basic civil right of autonomy. Of individuality. No matter how hard he worked or how clearly his professional life was separated from that of his father, media always referred to him as his father's son. Media - and everybody else.

That's a tough station for any human being. In fact, it's difficult to think of anybody else in Ireland over the past 50 years who has so suffered because of the sins of another. None of the other siblings was quite as public, ergo quite as accessible for thumping, as was Seán. Nor were any of the others so regularly faced with demands to abandon, denigrate or repudiate their father.

You may neither like nor rate Seán Haughey, but the man has paid and paid dearly for any financial gain he got from CJ.

While the survey respondents are fair-minded about Seán Haughey getting his 15 minutes of junior ministry, they're markedly less fair-minded about the Haughey family questioning Moriarty's judgements against CJ.

Now, a detailed reading of the report demonstrates that the Haughey family's untypical action in protesting bitterly about its judgements has some justification. The report makes at best a thin connection between the passive corruption of taking millions of quid in unearned handouts from rich people and the active corruption of bending the laws of Ireland to meet the needs of those rich people.

The reality is that most people, outside of media and politics, didn't read the report, so they're unqualified to hold an opinion on it. Look at it this way.

If I tell you I'm cast-iron, copper-bottomed certain your liver is in rag order, it may make me feel authoritative, but you'd be nuts to start making your will because a non-medic says you're for the high jump. It's an opinion I'm not competent to hold. Similarly, only those who have read the report are competent to have an opinion on the Haughey family response to it. Those who haven't, aren't.

The loss of faith in politicians because of the Moriarty tribunal report demonstrates the genius we have for illogical certainties. Moriarty confirmed that Charles Haughey was a unique, corrupt genius. Unique.

Nobody else came near to his brown paper bag score. Not only unique, but not that close to most of the politicians now in Leinster House. Yet we extrapolate a general slur from a onceoff individual.

For a good reason. We know Moriarty marked the end of an era.

And we want to close the door on that era with a big unsubtle bang.

As a result of the findings of the Moriarty Tribunal, are you now more or less trusting of Irish politicians in general?

Don't know / no opinion 16% More trusting 18% Less trusting 66%

SundayTribune POLL

The survey results presented here are derived from the Sunday Tribune/ Millward Brown IMS poll.

The poll was conducted among a sample of 1,093 adults representative of the 3.2 million adults aged 18 and over. They were interviewed face-to-face in the home at 100 sampling points throughout all constituencies.

Figures are rounded to arrive precisely at 100% in each question.

Interviewing was carried out on Monday and Tuesday 8-9 January.

The poll was conducted in accordance with the guidelines set by ESOMAR and AIMRO (European and Irish market research and opinion governing bodies).

Extracts from the report may be quoted or published on condition that due acknowledgement is given to the Sunday Tribune and Millward Brown IMS.

© Sunday Tribune and Millward Brown IMS, 2006