The Six counties European Election Thread/Poll

[Evil Genius]

The alliance party are not unionists look at the way the transfers from them and the greens went 52% unionist 48% nationalist, discounting those that did not transfer.

By its support for the constitutional status quo, the Alliance Party is quite evidently a Unionist Party (albeit a particularly "watery orange", as some wag once noted!).
Of course, it draws support reasonably equally from the two traditional camps in NI, but it is important to distinguish between a Party and its voters, since no Party can ever draw up a Manifesto which exactly reflects the views of all its supporters. In any case, no one may plausibly claim that when people vote Alliance they are voting for a Nationalist  Party.
As for the transfer of AP votes, the fact that the Unionist candidates received more of these than McGuinness, despite his being undeniably a more appealing candidate than either Dodds or Allister, must be moderately encouraging for Unionism generally.

There is one simple fact from this election, for the first time unionism could not muster up two quotas end of story.

It is only "end of story" in your one-eyed narrative. The important part of the "story" which it suits you to ignore, is that the only reason Unionism could not muster two full quotas was because this was the first time the Unionist vote was split fairly evenly between three candidates with strong support, rather than two.
In fact, the Election results offer greater comfort to Unionists than to Nationalists, since the circumstances surrounding the election (Unionist disunity, more credible Nationalist candidates than Unionist ones, DUP discomfort over double-jobbing/expenses/nepotism etc) gave many Nationalists to believe the SDLP could have taken a seat, yet this hope was not realised.

Even with a proportionally greater downturn in nationalist turnout this time as opposed to 2004

Banging on about "a proportionately greater downturn in nationalist turnout" is clutching at straws, for the clear fact remains that turnout in Unionist areas is consistently lower at elections than in Nationalist areas.
Indeed if I were a Nationalist, I would not be trumpeting any fall in turnout in Nationalist areas as some sort of "good thing" - how could it be?   Rather. as a Unionist I find this actually to be a reassurance (if anything), insofar as it may be evidence that greater numbers of Nationalists may now be accepting of the position of NI within the UK.

the unionist share of the vote still fell as it has fallen at every election since about 1981.

Not so. For with the nearest like-for-like comparison (EU elections), the overall Unionist share of the vote increased in 2009 over that of 2004. End of story.  

[Donagh]

For with the nearest like-for-like comparison (EU elections), the overall Unionist share of the vote increased in 2009 over that of 2004. End of story.  

The unionist vote was up by only 0.5% and the nationalist share stayed the same while the turnout in nationalist areas dropped by more than it did in unionist areas. If that's the best can do in a low overall turnout considering how much the combined unionist parties threw at this election, yiz are fecked.

[Evil Genius]

By the way the alliance party are non aligned at stormont do not believe all the crap EG posts on here.

Don't mind Eg too much he's been living abroad for so long now he much of a clue what goes on in Ireland.

"Living abroad"? Not me, Donagh, since when last I was in NI (earlier this month, in fact), I did not cross any international boundaries or have to show my Passport to anyone. I am pleased to say I have lived all my life in the same country, and expect to die in it, too, (in whichever region).

Unfortunately for him in this case the Alliance Wiki article neglects to mention how Alliance designates.  

You seem to enjoy your little digs at my occasional citing of Wiki, but they don't bother me (if that's your intention). For you see, whilst Wiki is often unreliable or contentious, it is also often capable of being authoritative.
Therefore, the real point is not that I sometimes use Wiki, but that I always acknowledge it with a link, so that anyone who considers the reference to be unreliable may say so.
Then again if your posts are anything to go by, you often seem unable to distinguish between Message and Messenger. Perhaps you might like to look this one up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem

[Donagh]

By the way the alliance party are non aligned at stormont do not believe all the crap EG posts on here.

Don't mind Eg too much he's been living abroad for so long now he much of a clue what goes on in Ireland.

"Living abroad"? Not me, Donagh, since when last I was in NI (earlier this month, in fact), I did not cross any international boundaries or have to show my Passport to anyone. I am pleased to say I have lived all my life in the same country, and expect to die in it, too, (in whichever region).

Unfortunately for him in this case the Alliance Wiki article neglects to mention how Alliance designates.  

You seem to enjoy your little digs at my occasional citing of Wiki, but they don't bother me (if that's your intention). For you see, whilst Wiki is often unreliable or contentious, it is also often capable of being authoritative.
Therefore, the real point is not that I sometimes use Wiki, but that I always acknowledge it with a link, so that anyone who considers the reference to be unreliable may say so.
Then again if your posts are anything to go by, you often seem unable to distinguish between Message and Messenger. Perhaps you might like to look this one up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem

Having been through Latin classes as a boy I don't need to Wiki 'Ad Hominem', though I don't see why you think it's relevant in this case simply because I enquired as to whether you have a vote overseas. All the better if you do, as I'm sure your fellow countrymen across the water couldn't get rid of us quick enough. 

[Evil Genius]

Yup the garden centre Prods are going to ride to the rescue.

It is always unwise to commit all your forces to the attack - far better to have a reserve, when needed.
Speaking of which, you and others have cited a greater rate of fall in turnout by Nationalists vis-a-vis Unionists in the recent Election*. Where do you think they might have been instead? At their local garden centre, perhaps?

* - As if that is some sort of comfort...

Will you be returning home for that vote EG, or will you not be eligible?

No idea, though I guess my having died of old age will likely make it difficult!  

[Evil Genius]

For once I did actually read your post and everything contained within are answered and refuted by my previous posts re the differential turnout.

From past form, had you been able to pick holes in any of my argument, you would have done so, so a general claim by you that all my points were "answered" or "refuted" is weak, even by your standards.
In particular, you are entirely unable to deny my central thesis, namely: "All of which goes to show that despite the circumstances in 2009 being notably more favourable for Nationalism vis-a-vis Unionism than in 2004, not only did the Nationalist vote fail to rise, but if anything, it actually fell. And at the same time, the Unionist vote actually rose slightly."

Oh and don't be putting quotes around phrases in some sort of pretence that you are quoting me - I said nothing of the sort. 

OK, then, do you care to reprise your observation on the Catholic/Protestant birthrate in NI, and its implications for voting patterns? I could have gone back through your past posts for a direct quotation, but frankly, I couldn't be arsed.

Edit: Alliance are not designated as unionist at Stormont, they are designated "others". But that's irrrelevant, if you see my previous posts I was referring to their transfers from the misguided souls that give them a vote.

Really? I thought they had registered at Stormont with the Unionist bloc (for legislative purposes).
In any case, they must be considered to be a "Unionist Party" in that they support the status quo i.e. NI being part of the Union. Granted, they do not campaign to retain the link, but unlike the SDLP and SF, neither do they actively campaign to break it, either.

1. See my previous posts re the differential - turnout favoured unionism this time out and their share of the vote didn't change.
2. Then as I said, don't attribute your makey uppy statements to me
3. Yes you were wrong on that one, but we'll not dwell on it because as I pointed out in my previous posts, their transfers indicate the possible direction of their voters.

1. Who do you mean by "their"? If you are referring to Unionists, the DUP/UUP share of 1st preference votes in 2004 was 48.5%, in 2009 the DUP/UUP/TUV share was 49%. Considering the divided state of Unionism this time around, plus the poor candidates fielded and the disarray in the DUP etc, this must be encouraging for Unionism (imo);
2. We both know which point of yours I was referring to. And we also both know that if my reference to it was a significant distortion of it, you would have been quick to provide me with an original quotation of yours. Your bluff is called...
3. And I am entirely happy with the pattern of AP transfers, namely three Unionist candidates (inc at least two of them crap) receiving more transfers than McGuinness*.

* - Incidentally, whilst the evidence is only anecdotal, I suspect McGuinness would have received a significant number of transfers from UUP voters (i.e. ahead of Dodds), had Nicholson been eliminated first.

[Donagh]

It is always unwise to commit all your forces to the attack - far better to have a reserve, when needed.
Speaking of which, you and others have cited a greater rate of fall in turnout by Nationalists vis-a-vis Unionists in the recent Election*. Where do you think they might have been instead? At their local garden centre, perhaps?

Doesn't matter where they are because the nationalist share of the vote stayed the same. Even if they don't appear again and the trends continue, they'll be replaced by new nationalist voters. As I said previously nationalism only needs to increase it's share of the vote between the two blocks by 2.5% to exceed 50%+1. That will happen within 10 or 12 years at the latest and probably a lot sooner.

[Donagh]

1. Who do you mean by "their"? If you are referring to Unionists, the DUP/UUP share of 1st preference votes in 2004 was 48.5%, in 2009 the DUP/UUP/TUV share was 49%. Considering the divided state of Unionism this time around, plus the poor candidates fielded and the disarray in the DUP etc, this must be encouraging for Unionism (imo);
2. We both know which point of yours I was referring to. And we also both know that if my reference to it was a significant distortion of it, you would have been quick to provide me with an original quotation of yours. Your bluff is called...
3. And I am entirely happy with the pattern of AP transfers, namely three Unionist candidates (inc at least two of them crap) receiving more transfers than McGuinness*.

* - Incidentally, whilst the evidence is only anecdotal, I suspect McGuinness would have received a significant number of transfers from UUP voters (i.e. ahead of Dodds), had Nicholson been eliminated first.

1. To get a more accurate view on the state of play, I've been judging the size of the two blocs after all transfers have found a home but anyway a 0.5% increase in a low turnout is nothing to be optimistic for because of (i) the amount of effort the unionist parties put into this election and (ii) more interest in unionism due to the Alistair factor.
2. I have no idea what you are talking about but feel free to quote me accurately and then come back with a point, not some silly notion of what you think I said.
3. I'm not sure what you are going on about here (was Marty standing without telling anyone?) but I'm glad you are happy that the notion of the 'Castle Kethlics' saving the union has been put to bed.   

[Hound]

Prof Brendan O'Leary from the University of Pennsylvania apparently studies, among other things, voting trends in Northern Ireland (from Cork, lived in the north for a while and was once a political advisor to the UK Labour party), and as such was invited to speak at the annual conference of the Institute of British-Irish studies which took place in Dublin yesterday.

The Irish Times reports today that he said the following:

"Growth in the nationalist vote in Northern Ireland had stabilised and it was unlikely there would be a nationalist majority in the next 30 years to vote for a united Ireland"

[Evil Genius]

Having been through Latin classes as a boy I don't need to Wiki 'Ad Hominem', though I don't see why you think it's relevant in this case simply because I enquired as to whether you have a vote overseas. All the better if you do, as I'm sure your fellow countrymen across the water couldn't get rid of us quick enough. 

Wrong on four counts, I think.
First, you made your Wiki dig in reference to your Alliance Party point, not my voting eligibility.
Second, you referred to my living "abroad", not "overseas" and as I'm sure you know, "abroad" is generally taken to mean in a foreign country, whereas I live in the same country as I've always lived in, merely a different region.
Third, why wouldn't I have a vote where I live? (Incidentally, I voted* for the same bloc as 82,893 people in NI  )
Fourth, if my GB countrymen really are set on getting rid of NI, then they've a bloody funny way of showing it, since after 88 years, the constitutional position of NI within the UK is stronger than ever, inter alia being recognised worldwide, underwritten by the UK government, and administered by 5 of the 6 main political parties in NI, including your (former?) buddies in Sinn Fein!

* - Not a bad day, as Thursdays go...

[Evil Genius]

It is always unwise to commit all your forces to the attack - far better to have a reserve, when needed.
Speaking of which, you and others have cited a greater rate of fall in turnout by Nationalists vis-a-vis Unionists in the recent Election*. Where do you think they might have been instead? At their local garden centre, perhaps?

Doesn't matter where they are because the nationalist share of the vote stayed the same. Even if they don't appear again and the trends continue, they'll be replaced by new nationalist voters. As I said previously nationalism only needs to increase it's share of the vote between the two blocks by 2.5% to exceed 50%+1. That will happen within 10 or 12 years at the latest and probably a lot sooner.

You wish! 

In fact, why don't you go down to Paddy Power and place a bet on it, since you'll get good odds for what by your use of "will", you must consider to be a racing certainty? And with interest rates being so low, even the full 10 or 12 years will give a much better return than sticking it in a bank.

P.S. How much sooner is "a lot"? Seven years would have a nice ring to it (though 12 might also have resonance for you, too, I'd have thought!)

[Evil Genius]

1. To get a more accurate view on the state of play, I've been judging the size of the two blocs after all transfers have found a home but anyway a 0.5% increase in a low turnout is nothing to be optimistic for because of (i) the amount of effort the unionist parties put into this election and (ii) more interest in unionism due to the Alistair factor.

We must agree to disagree, then, for this Unionist was encouraged by the voting patterns, all things considered;

2. I have no idea what you are talking about but feel free to quote me accurately and then come back with a point, not some silly notion of what you think I said.

If you say so. Or don't...

3. I'm not sure what you are going on about here (was Marty standing without telling anyone?)

Sorry, incorrect spelling of the SDLP candidate's name (but somehow I suspect you knew that). Oh and btw, you might also have a word with GDA, who it was misled me over the correct spelling in his Poll at the top of the page. Or do you not take up your fellow Republicans when they originally make an error?

but I'm glad you are happy that the notion of the 'Castle Kethlics' saving the union has been put to bed.   

"Castle Kethlics" or "Garden Centre Prods" aren't really the issue, here, it's votes which count. On which point I must choose between eg "your 50%+1 within 10 or 12 years, if not a lot sooner" and the opinion of Prof. O'Leary, as quoted just now by Hound.

Hmmm, tricky choice that...

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

Prof Brendan O'Leary from the University of Pennsylvania apparently studies, among other things, voting trends in Northern Ireland (from Cork, lived in the north for a while and was once a political advisor to the UK Labour party), and as such was invited to speak at the annual conference of the Institute of British-Irish studies which took place in Dublin yesterday.

The Irish Times reports today that he said the following:

"Growth in the nationalist vote in Northern Ireland had stabilised and it was unlikely there would be a nationalist majority in the next 30 years to vote for a united Ireland"

Am always suspicious of stats and people using them, or more correctly people can twist stats/figures etc to suit any arguement, as far as I'm concerned results are the only way to say for sure that this/that thing occured/happened etc...

I think this thread proves that stats can be used by different people to "prove" different points.

[Donagh]

First, you made your Wiki dig in reference to your Alliance Party point, not my voting eligibility.
Second, you referred to my living "abroad", not "overseas" and as I'm sure you know, "abroad" is generally taken to mean in a foreign country, whereas I live in the same country as I've always lived in, merely a different region.
Third, why wouldn't I have a vote where I live? (Incidentally, I voted* for the same bloc as 82,893 people in NI  )
Fourth, if my GB countrymen really are set on getting rid of NI, then they've a bloody funny way of showing it, since after 88 years, the constitutional position of NI within the UK is stronger than ever, inter alia being recognised worldwide, underwritten by the UK government, and administered by 5 of the 6 main political parties in NI, including your (former?) buddies in Sinn Fein!

* - Not a bad day, as Thursdays go...

1. Who cares?
2. Abroad, overseas - tis all the same to me.
3. No idea, you tell me
4. Your opinion doesn't really count for much in such debates.

[Donagh]

You wish! 

In fact, why don't you go down to Paddy Power and place a bet on it, since you'll get good odds for what by your use of "will", you must consider to be a racing certainty? And with interest rates being so low, even the full 10 or 12 years will give a much better return than sticking it in a bank.

P.S. How much sooner is "a lot"? Seven years would have a nice ring to it (though 12 might also have resonance for you, too, I'd have thought!)

I already posted my reasons for saying this in previous posts on other threads, which you obviously read, but refused to take part in. If you would like to open that debate again I'm only happy to do so, but don't expect me to repeat everything I've posted elsewhere - go read them and come back to me.