six county elections 05/05/2011

[MW]

It's a sure sign of insecurity that our unionist brothers are now so desperate to tell us that Alliance are unionist, despite the official AP line and the great efforts of their members to convince us that they're not. At the end of the day it doesn't matter a jot. As their transfers show, they are soft on the national question and open to persuasion. Given that the "unionist majority" is now a thing of the past and the AP now hold the balance in our current plurality, I suppose they have reason to be insecure. The northern state is inevitably going the same way as Belfast. It took only 14 years since the unionists lost their majority until the nationalists overtook them on the council. Factor in the soft AP vote and the NI state has about 15-20 years left, max.

Funny enough, I think it's "insecurity" that drives someone to imagine that the new Alliance voters of East Belfast or North Down, who may previously have voted for the UUP, DUP or PUP, are now "ambivalent" on the Union...

[armaghniac]

But you did not respond to him by claiming that Alliance voters are "pretty much in the middle" when it comes to transferring. Instead, you went to the trouble of looking up and quoting Anna Lo's transfers only.

As I said at the time, your continued calls about these transfers, without any data, was getting on my wick. In that you then started posting data, rather than simple jibes, I achieved my objective.

Funny enough, I think it's "insecurity" that drives someone to imagine that the new Alliance voters of East Belfast or North Down, who may previously have voted for the UUP, DUP or PUP, are now "ambivalent" on the Union...

Perhaps I am being naive, but I imagined that how people vote might be related to what they think. Consequently, how people vote was of interest and not just how they used to vote or what community they are from.

Oddly enough EG seems think this too,as he places great importance on the nationalist vote remaining at 42% or so, and seems to think that people from a nationalist background voting for Alliance is a sign of a change of political perspective. So if a nationalist votes for Alliance then they have changed views, whereas if a unionist starts to vote Alliance that they are as true blue as ever. The reality is likely to be that sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't, in both cases.

[Evil Genius]

But you did not respond to him by claiming that Alliance voters are "pretty much in the middle" when it comes to transferring. Instead, you went to the trouble of looking up and quoting Anna Lo's transfers only.

As I said at the time, your continued calls about these transfers, without any data, was getting on my wick. In that you then started posting data, rather than simple jibes, I achieved my objective.

Ah right, that must have been it.

I'll file that one away alongside "Gerry Adams was never in the IRA" and "Ulick is not the (banned) poster formerly known as Donagh"...

Good one. 

Funny enough, I think it's "insecurity" that drives someone to imagine that the new Alliance voters of East Belfast or North Down, who may previously have voted for the UUP, DUP or PUP, are now "ambivalent" on the Union...

Perhaps I am being naive, but I imagined that how people vote might be related to what they think. Consequently, how people vote was of interest and not just how they used to vote or what community they are from.

Oddly enough EG seems think this too,as he places great importance on the nationalist vote remaining at 42% or so, and seems to think that people from a nationalist background voting for Alliance is a sign of a change of political perspective. So if a nationalist votes for Alliance then they have changed views, whereas if a unionist starts to vote Alliance that they are as true blue as ever. The reality is likely to be that sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't, in both cases.

Actually, people generally vote for their chosen candidate for a variety of reasons, some of which may be contradictory. For example, they may lean towards one Party, but prefer the individual candidate of another Party. Or they may vote for a Party which might not otherwise have got their vote, due to some particular Policy. Or they may vote against their normal inclination for tactical reasons. Or they may dislike the general policy of a given Party, but accept that they "get things done". Or they may simply vote for someone in order to keep out someone else worse.

On which point, there is evidence that Unionists are now more willing to vote outwith the usual tribal lines than Nationalists, in that the "Other" parties (i.e. non-Unionist or Nationalist) such as Alliance or Green do much better in Unionist-majority constituencies than they do in Nationalist-majority ones.

Oddly enough EG seems think this too, as he places great importance on the nationalist vote remaining at 42% or so...

I place great importance on the 42% vote because if Nationalists are ever going to achieve a UI, it will only be by reaching the 50%+1 mark in a Referendum.
I see no sign whatever of them gaining the extra 8% from within the Unionist camp (quite the contrary), therefore their best bet must be to appeal to the Centre. But insofar as the Centre is represented by Alliance, I feel that even there they have little hope, since the evidence suggests that Alliance draws its support disproportionately from the Unionist community.

... and seems to think that people from a nationalist background voting for Alliance is a sign of a change of political perspective. So if a nationalist votes for Alliance then they have changed views, whereas if a unionist starts to vote Alliance that they are as true blue as ever.

I don't think I ever stated, or even implied, that. 
All I said was that Alliance draws 8 times more support from Unionist-majority constituencies than from Nationalist-majority ones.
Therefore I speculated that when it comes to a Referendum, Alliance voters who turn out may be more likely to vote "No" than "Yes". But even should the Alliance split be 50-50, then that would still be nowhere nearly enough to take the "Yes" vote over the 50% mark.

The reality is likely to be that sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't, in both cases.

As I said earlier, people vote for different parties for different reasons.

If it ever came to a Referendum, I suspect new factors may come into play which don't necessarily influence their vote in a normal election. Of course, such new factors might skew the vote more towards a "Yes" than a "No".

But on the basis of the Survey below, I am very confident that these new/additional factors would actually benefit the "No" campaign to a much greater degree: 
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2009/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html

Happy Days! 

[Lecale2]

"Ulick is not the (banned) poster formerly known as Donagh"

Donagh was banned? Why?

[AQMP]

"Ulick is not the (banned) poster formerly known as Donagh"

Donagh was banned? Why?

Evil Genius a Mod??...Who'd have thunk it

[Applesisapples]

All this debate and vote counting is irrelevant. The fact is that a UI Will happen but not as quickly as some would want and it certainly will be a different UI to the one many envisage. Also a fact is that the conditions are not right for people in either jurisdiction to vote yes for a UI. SF calls for a referendum are just bluff, they don't really want one because they know that they would lose a straight yes or no vote. When a UI is achieved it will be because the hurts of the past on all sides have been healed and because a large section of what is now the Unionist community see benefit in it, it will also be because their rights and identity are protected. Until then we are stuck with the status quo. But this does not mean as nationalists we stop working towards the goal of unity. For what its worth I would say a vote for Alliance is a vote for the union.

[Evil Genius]

"Ulick is not the (banned) poster formerly known as Donagh"

Donagh was banned? Why?

No, he wasn't. In fact, Donagh's account is still active.

Fair enough, he mustn't have been banned, then.

Prompts the question why he was allowed to register a new Account, when it was pretty obvious "Donagh" and "Ulick" were one and the same...

[Evil Genius]

All this debate and vote counting is irrelevant.

"Irrelevant"?
Don't you mean "inconvenient"?

The fact is that a UI Will happen but not as quickly as some would want and it certainly will be a different UI to the one many envisage.

Now where have I heard that certainty recently?
Oh yes, this is it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMFDFZ0nWiw

Also a fact is that the conditions are not right for people in either jurisdiction to vote yes for a UI.

You sound to me like a fisherman I used to know who also invariably ascribed his lack of success to the "wrong conditions".
The "fact" is, he was a crap fisherman...

SF calls for a referendum are just bluff, they don't really want one because they know that they would lose a straight yes or no vote be humiliated by the outcome.

Ooooh, so close...

When a UI is achieved it will be because the hurts of the past on all sides have been healed and because a large section of what is now the Unionist community see benefit in it, it will also be because their rights and identity are protected.

You're confusing cause and effect. (As well as falling into the old "When", not "If" trap)

Until then we are stuck with the status quo.

Actually, it was Huey Lewis, not Status Quo (or "Same Cheese, Different Cheesemaker"):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8b0IKQxx2k

But this does not mean as nationalists we stop working towards the goal of unity.

"God Loves a Trier".

It's just a shame He doesn't have a Vote...

For what its worth I would say a vote for Alliance is a vote for the union.

It's worth about 5% of the total, I'd guess. 

[Applesisapples]

EG if you can definitively discount what I have said, and note there is no time frame, all I will say is look at the the Berlin Wall, Soviet Union, the British Empire. Time changes everything. The biggest bar to unity in the last 30 years was IRA violence that's gone along with Unionist Hegemony.

[johnneycool]

It's a sure sign of insecurity that our unionist brothers are now so desperate to tell us that Alliance are unionist, despite the official AP line and the great efforts of their members to convince us that they're not. At the end of the day it doesn't matter a jot. As their transfers show, they are soft on the national question and open to persuasion. Given that the "unionist majority" is now a thing of the past and the AP now hold the balance in our current plurality, I suppose they have reason to be insecure. The northern state is inevitably going the same way as Belfast. It took only 14 years since the unionists lost their majority until the nationalists overtook them on the council. Factor in the soft AP vote and the NI state has about 15-20 years left, max.

Funny enough, I think it's "insecurity" that drives someone to imagine that the new Alliance voters of East Belfast or North Down, who may previously have voted for the UUP, DUP or PUP, are now "ambivalent" on the Union...

I'd bet a pound to a penny that the Alliance  Strangford MLA from Kircubbin, Kieran McCarthy's majority of votes would be attributed to people who'd consider themselves nationalist.

[Evil Genius]

EG if you can definitively discount what I have said, and note there is no time frame, all I will say is look at the the Berlin Wall, Soviet Union, the British Empire. Time changes everything.

Nowhere have I ever claimed that there will never be a UI (though I really can't see any sign in my lifetime).

Rather, I am challenging the certainty that there will  be one.

A UI is not the "Default Setting"; in fact, if History tells us anything, it is that nothing is "inevitable", but anything is possible.

And in the meantime, I take (a certain childish) pleasure in observing the wriggling and backtracking of the "Class of 2016", who either haven't cottoned on, or won't admit, to the increasing likelihood that just like Gerry Adams Sr, Joe Cahill and Brian Keenan etc before them, they, too, will die long before their hopes... 

The biggest bar to unity in the last 30 years was IRA violence that's gone along with Unionist Hegemony.

The most immediate, certainly, and also the most provocative (no pun intended).

But I am increasingly inclined to believe that just because that particular barrier to Unity has been removed, it doesn't mean that people must now inevitably walk through the gap.

On the contrary, the end of The Troubles offers us all* the opportunity to rebuild a new NI, at peace with itself, which is broadly acceptable to the majority of its people, whether nominally "Unionist" or "Nationalist".


* - I say "all", since even SF have shown they may be drawn into helping administer British Rule in Ireland