On a more sombre note. Marty really isn't well.
I'm sure Arlene will lead the tributes in a careful and considerate manner when the time comes...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...spital-reports
Printable View
On a more sombre note. Marty really isn't well.
I'm sure Arlene will lead the tributes in a careful and considerate manner when the time comes...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...spital-reports
@Danny and Bonnie- you're reading too much into that poll and coming over a bit defensively ;)Quote:
That poll quoted by RTE
What it shows shouldn't be too surprising. Basically that
a) while people have always voted for a future UI in opinion polls, knowing there was no short or even mid-term likelihood of it happening, that will be different if an actual all-Ireland referendum follows a Nationalist 'win' in a NI election
b) the actual costs, or their method of calculation are less important than that voters will need to consider them at all, for the first time
I don't know what would happen in such a Referendum, but the lack of a big majority for yes is plausible. Put another way, can you be certain of massive support for taking on an extra 40% population from a sporadically violent, economically weak and politically turbulent other country, while quite possibly in a recession yourselves?
On the other hand, I do know what Southern governments have and haven't done for the last near-century ;)
Every time I mention this, people gurn that the Free State/ later Republic was powerless to negotiate any Northern Nationalists back into the State, while conveniently ignoring that for 60 years they claimed in the Constitution that it had already happened. That this was clearly absurd doesn't make it any less dishonest. There is a widespread denial about long-established partitionism in the South. And once you accept that it existed, why would it be guaranteed to change in future?Quote:
That never-changing border through Puckoon
One party rule was barred after 1972, effectively long-term coalition involving the two biggest blocs became the only viable option after 1998. The POC may still exist enabling 30 MLAs to block something that 50 or 60 support. So while Unionism has clearly taken a bad hit I think you overstate the significance, psychological or otherwise. My own forecast of the Election scoreboard, while wrong, did suggest only 44 Unionist seats, no-one responded in the terms you use above.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
And yes Bonnie, I am familiar with the Troubles, having lived in Belfast through the 70s and 80s. Many of my family and neighbors were forced out homes, schools and jobs as a result. Spare us the exaggerated outrage/ rank-pulling.
Outdated 70s rhetoric. NI continues to exist because the Unionist population was and remains large enough and localised. The specific abuses ended nearly 50 years ago. GM generally is used by all governments (including in Dublin and London) to improve their own electoral chances. I don't see any three seat constituencies electing to Stormont...you are just using gerrymandering as a bogeyman and shorthand for anything the Brits or Unionists do that you don't like.Quote:
The statelet is a gerrymandered entity in itself. Formed on the basis of a crude sectarian headcount, it's continued existence has essentially been the effect and sustenance of a gerrymander
Generally yes. I'm not sure that it will be a crucial issue for much longer though. As I said, if there's a free vote or even referendum changes will pass. After which, there'll be pro-abortion Unionists and anti-gay marriage Nationalists and a more relaxed electorate generally.Quote:
I perceive attitudes to abortion and reproductive rights to be more hardline generally within political unionism
You said, “nationalism is a much more accessible philosophy for women”, which was pretty (deliberately?) vague. There was at least a possible implication that you thought nationalism was inherently more attractive to women voters in NI. I merely pointed that the election result suggests otherwise ;)Quote:
I meant that accessing political nationalism's upper ceilings evidently appears to be easier for women
My direct experience is limited to a couple of holidays (including Euro 92), but have some people been forming their opinions based on Scandi Noir films and novels?Quote:
violence in Southern Sweden
More circular guff.
Eventually the North won't have a choice about its status...whilst the stuff about the border and Irish governments is a complete red herring. No-one on either side has discussed it as they're not interested in modern day gerry mandering whilst Dublin hasn't had the military will in the best part of a 100 years so what do you expect to happen?
Financially as pointed out from other sources the AI economy is forecast to grow, at least in the short-term, though 'sporadically violent, economically weak and politically turbulent other country' is a bit hard on the auld Gerry Fitts(Brits).
I was doing the exact opposite actually; reading very little into it (for the reasons outlined). ;)
As already mentioned, two-thirds of those polled last July in a Paddy Power/Red C survey said they'd back unity tomorrow. That's in the immediate short-term; not some nebulous future.Quote:
a) while people have always voted for a future UI in opinion polls, knowing there was no short or even mid-term likelihood of it happening, that will be different if an actual all-Ireland referendum follows a Nationalist 'win' in a NI election
The dichotomy of or apparent theoretical/practical contradiction between de facto status or de jure status of particular entities is a very common feature of international politics, statecraft, diplomacy and discord. It's indicative of the natural or existential difficulty with differing subjective perspectives, the task of evaluating consensus(es) and deriving legitimacy from there.Quote:
Every time I mention this, people gurn that the Free State/ later Republic was powerless to negotiate any Northern Nationalists back into the State, while conveniently ignoring that for 60 years they claimed in the Constitution that it had already happened. That this was clearly absurd doesn't make it any less dishonest. There is a widespread denial about long-established partitionism in the South. And once you accept that it existed, why would it be guaranteed to change in future?
Well, I'm not saying that the post-GFA unionist majority in Stormont equated to one-party-rule. Clearly, it didn't as systematic checks and balances were put in place once cross-community governance was ensured/protected by mutual agreement.Quote:
One party rule was barred after 1972, effectively long-term coalition involving the two biggest blocs became the only viable option after 1998.... So while Unionism has clearly taken a bad hit I think you overstate the significance, psychological or otherwise. My own forecast of the Election scoreboard, while wrong, did suggest only 44 Unionist seats, no-one responded in the terms you use above.
Have the media been overstating the significance too? It's been the headline story of the election - unionism losing it's "perpetual" or assumed parliamentary majority for the first time in history and nationalism making enough proportionate gains so as to even out the parliamentary playing field - no? Adams' description of the election as a "watershed" moment was given widespread headline media coverage; probably as there's a large dollop of truth in it.
That notion was also the primary focus of (the amusingly ignorant/misinformed) Andrew Neil and his (unseasoned) English guests on 'Sunday Politics' (from 3m59s) yesterday morning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi-BkAYeRLk#t=3m59s
Isabel Oakeshott described the loss of the unionist majority as "serious", "significant" and (laughably/insultingly) a "very dangerous moment", but clearly grasped that it was an important moment.
FWIW, some of the other comments by Neil and his panel are very revealing and indicate just how far removed people on that side of the Irish Sea are from what actually goes on in the north of Ireland; somewhere those in the British establishment supposedly regard as being an integral part of their country.
To be honest, I hadn't even appreciated the significance of you predicting that designated unionists would win less than 45 seats. I simply wasn't paying close attention for that. Perhaps the same applies to others. I simply didn't envisage that the historic majority would have been lost, so it hadn't really been on my mind or crossed my mind that 44 seats would in fact represent a minority, even though it's self-evident and seems pretty obvious now in hindsight. If it had been specifically pointed out to me, I'm sure its significance would have struck me then and I would most likely have commented on it. As it happened, unionism lost its majority - unexpected, as far as I was concerned - and the import of that then struck me, after the fact.
Issues like the Union flag solely flying over Belfast City Hall and the resulting protests over that being limited to designated days were predicated upon a unionist or loyalist assumption that they, with their British identity, are top dogs, but it's much harder to make such complaints or appeals for preservation of the 'status quo' when you no longer have the superior strength in numbers. The north of Ireland is not a homogenous British or unionist monolith and the loss of a unionist parliamentary majority should hopefully drive that point home for those who still like to believe that it is.
The unionist population has remained large enough and localised for the very reason that the statelet itself is a gerrymandered entity. If the border had been drawn differently or elsewhere, the unionist population would not have been or remained large enough to concoct the semblance of democracy. The original gerrymander has maintained partition, which continues to impoverish and divide the island's people; I'm not saying it continues to be a source of specific human or civil rights abuses any longer.Quote:
Outdated 70s rhetoric. NI continues to exist because the Unionist population was and remains large enough and localised. The specific abuses ended nearly 50 years ago. GM generally is used by all governments (including in Dublin and London) to improve their own electoral chances. I don't see any three seat constituencies electing to Stormont...you are just using gerrymandering as a bogeyman and shorthand for anything the Brits or Unionists do that you don't like.
Irrespective of the "rhetoric" one uses, NI was still a cynical construction that denied the expressed democratic will of the Irish people as a whole. Whilst most former colonies, by and large, were granted independence as whole entities in accordance with the wishes of majorities therein (and with the colonial settler population and any territory they inhabited also ceded by Britain), the partition of Ireland was rather unique, no doubt due to the proximity of the north-east of Ireland to Britain, which thereby enabled that latter to militarily enforce its will over the Irish and our affairs a lot easier if necessary.
If a nationalist or republican gave the following description for what they were doing, I would still refer to it as a cynical gerrymander:
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Craig (House of Commons; 29th of March, 1920)
I think northern nationalism is a philosophy that is inherently more in tune and at ease with the concept of equality (rather than the concept of traditional privilege, with which "big house" unionism particularly might be more accustomed), and for obvious socio-historic reasons. When people have had to struggle for equality, rights, justice and so forth, it enables (or one would hope or expect it to enable) them to empathise better with those in similar struggles.
Evidently, there is greater room for (what one might call) upward mobility within political nationalism for women (perhaps because of the aforementioned historical and ideological distinction) considering women have twice the representation within political nationalism at Stormont (nearly 40 per cent of 'Nationalist' MLAs are women) as they do within political unionism at Stormont (just 20 per cent of 'Unionist' MLAs are women).
Maybe so, but we just have the poll question posed and the resulting answers/figures to go on. Otherwise, we're just speculating as to the motives, interests, knowledge and foresight of those surveyed.
On the significance of unionism losing its parliamentary majority, which GR seems to be downplaying, George Galloway described events as "groundbreaking" here and his interviewee, Kevin Meagher, shared the view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ94BMDiyBU
I think it has been broadly accepted by most commentators and observers as a big deal.
Also, an interesting graph, this, which further emphasises the historical significance of last Thursday:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6EEo2nWUAAKtm8.jpg:large
Morning all. Will reply in detail this evening (my laptop just crashed with Gorgeous Galloway in full flow ;) ).
Just came across this interesting graphic (published here today by Eurostat) in respect of the gender pay-gap throughout European states in 2015:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6Tar4cXQAALECJ.jpg
They do state that they've used 2014 data for Ireland (and some other states) but that the pay-gap has remained stable overall, so perhaps it is somewhat relevant to our gender-related side-discussion and national comparisons...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eurostat
Except no-one thinks that's the case. That's just daft. Any transition would take at least 5 years. And that's based on some settlement at least 5-10 years from now.
Anyway back in the, er, real world. This has been Foster's response.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-35507746.html
The replies on social media are quite amusing to put mildly. And that's mainly 'her 'fellow unionists...
Rather than see this election result as emphasising the need for self-reflection and a more reasonable, reconciliatory, empathetic approach to business, Arlene's desire appears to be to "no surrender!", "batten down the hatches!" and inevitably recede further towards an eventual wilderness: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-35507626.html
As Brian Walker (a liberal unionist, I believe) writes on Slugger:Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlene Foster
A merging of the DUP, UUP and possibly even the TUV would be long-term strategic suicide. Whilst any new combined unionist party would undoubtedly receive greater support than each of the three parties designated as 'Unionist' would in isolation, as an overall bloc, unionism would, without a doubt, lose a significant number of votes from liberal, progressive and "default" unionists to more moderate parties like Alliance and the Greens. This would inevitably only further strengthen nationalism's relative clout.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Walker
Given Arlene's prior form, it may be little surprise to see this happen. She has done extraordinary damage to unionism as it is. Maybe it'd be a good thing for her to stick around... She's been a blessing in disguise!
Not to take this further off topic, but from my readings, Ireland has always been one of the more progressive countries when it comes to the role of the woman in society. As a State that was unduly influenced by the Catholic Church for too long in our recent history, we are not without some blemishes and there is still a lot of work to do - but dating back to the times of Brehon law the treatment of women by a patriarchal society was deemed very progressive as compared to other cultures - equality, land ownership, divorce and succession rights and judicial participation the most significant.
This status carried on (informally) through centuries of occupation with the role of women being prominent in a number of rebellions with the most obvious and most celebrated being the participation of women in the 1916 Rising which was the first instance of men voluntarily including and arming women in such a struggle. Ironically enough, it was after 1922 when women gained voting equality that their rights really started declining as the influence of the Catholic Church grew and DeValera's constitution reflects this. I think that the 70's and 90's saw the first real and most significant waves of feminism in Ireland and, again, it was welcomed by our society (as it was at the time still under influence of the Church) more so than others.
Anyway, still a long way to go for women to really, truly stand on equal footing but the history of womens rights in Ireland and the role of the woman is a very interesting study.
Don't let a certain Orange groper hear you say that!
Ah, I'll indulge you. It is fascinating stuff, as you say. And sure you've been suspended for a week already anyway, I see, so what's the harm?! :p
Indeed, the Proclamation of 1916 declared universal suffrage for all Irish men and women. In the UK, only women who were householders and over the age of 30 gained the right to vote in 1918, whilst women over the age of 21 didn't get the vote until 1928.Quote:
This status carried on (informally) through centuries of occupation with the role of women being prominent in a number of rebellions with the most obvious and most celebrated being the participation of women in the 1916 Rising which was the first instance of men voluntarily including and arming women in such a struggle.
Síghle Bhreathnach-Lynch's writing on the post-1922 Marian construction of an Irish (female) identity grounded in the rural, Gaelic and Catholic is fascinating: http://cws.journals.yorku.ca/index.p...File/8831/8008Quote:
Ironically enough, it was after 1922 when women gained voting equality that their rights really started declining as the influence of the Catholic Church grew and DeValera's constitution reflects this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Síghle Bhreathnach-Lynch
Having two female heads of state in succession (from 1990 through to 2011) was indeed a very progressive development. In fact, it was the first time in international history that a female president of any country directly succeeded another female president.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
This is its, she is the gift that keeps on giving, she's like a Thatcher who cannot hurt you back but brings you floods of votes, a no down side Thatcher figure. Real treasure.
SFs trickiest job now is to find a way back to the institutions while keeping her at the helm of the DUP .... irony.
An interesting counterfactual piece on Slugger that draws comparison between the make-up of the 90-seat 2017 asssembly and a notional 90-seat 2016 assembly: http://sluggerotoole.com/2017/03/07/...-2017-results/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Thompson
It wasn't just the loss of the overall majority though. That has been coming for years. It was the big bang way that it happened. Unionism didn't just lose it's majority. It came within a couple of hundred votes in Strangford of losing both the majority and plurality on the same afternoon. Nobody dreamed of that happening but it was avoided by a whisker.
Even my "insane" prediction only has 37 Nats v 42 Unionists. Overall majority gone but still a comfortable lead for unionism.
BonnieShels will have to forgive me for bringing the "insane" thing up again. It's going to be my own personal "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment for a while
Interestingly, the Boundary commission proposes to move Crossgar (pop 1800 - 75% Catholic) and half of Carryduff (pop 7000 - 50% Catholic) into Strangford in 2018. All other things being equal there will be an easy Nationalist seat there next time. And on these figures with the new boundaries I'd be looking at the next Westminster election coming out with
SF: 7
SDLP: 2
Alliance: 1
DUP: 4
UUP: 1
Ind U: 1
UB&B will be tight between DUP & SF, though there is every chance that SF could take both those SDLP seats