Being prepared for the unexpected is one of principal political arts - and never was a Government more in need of it than the current Fianna Fail/ Progressive Democrat coalition. The extraordinary - and quite justified - criticism that greeted the Budget decision to individualise tax codes and financially privilege double over single income earning families, has now been joined by a separate crisis over the future of the social partnership talks. Following SIPTU's decision to withdraw in equally justified protest over treatment of the low paid, it will take all Mr Bertie Ahern's considerable skills as a political negotiator to pull the threads back together again.
Given the depth of feeling he has stirred up, Mr McCreevy might be better advised to lie low rather than affirm that this is merely the first of three socially engineering Budgets and that the coalition has an electoral mandate for its decisions. Independents and backbenchers will quickly communicate the message to party leaderships. The ground was ill-prepared politically for this Budget. So far it has been sold lamentably badly, despite the clear support several of its aspects enjoy among major interest groups.
If the tax individualisation measures are genuinely intended to correct a taxation anomaly for double-income families by giving them the money to pay for child care, why was that not made much more explicit and more clearly targeted at such families that actually have children in that age group? Would it not have been more efficient and equitable to channel the money towards child allowances?
Social equity is at the heart of the partnership agenda. The brunt of SIPTU's criticisms have to do with the Budget's treatment of those on low pay, earning less than £14,000 a year. Such people, many of them women, benefit one third as well in percentage terms than people earning over that threshold, whether they are on average, middle or high income categories. These low earners form a substantial proportion of SIPTU's membership and have to be looked after as competitively by its leadership as the high income individuals Mr McCreevy has pledged so effectively to benefit by so reducing the tax bands. He is sticking to his position with the stubbornness for which he has become so well known. He should not be surprised if others adopt the same tactic.
It is the sharp contrast between poorer and richer beneficiaries of the Budget that has thrown the partnership talks into crisis. SIPTU leaders believed there was a commitment in the guidelines adopted by the National Economic and Social Council last month to a more egalitarian approach which would have eased the path to a pay deal. The only obvious way to make up the difference now for the low paid will be through very high flat rate increases which run against the grain of previous such agreements. That combined with consolidation of the genuine benefits available to middle-income earners could, with imagination, be turned to advantage in the partnership talks. It is essential that a formula be found.
There is an issue of good faith here which Mr Ahern will have to address urgently in coming days if the partnership talks are to be put back on track. Latest reports indicate there is quite sufficient tax buoyancy to give him some leeway to compensate for some of these inequities. Tackle them he must.