Two great points in those last two posts.
They really aren't reading the angle here are they, now SF, don't gloat, don't display a trace of the hideous attitude they displayed toward you and your voters back at them and theirs. Just continue rising above these dinosaurs and get the job finished.
Not unexpected. But Jesus he's a bitter bitter man.
I feel bad for the UUP and Nesbitt. They ran a positive campaign and sought to find a middle ground. It can only be commended. These negotiations are gonna be great.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Remarkable result. I wonder what had more traction, RHI or Brexit?
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
Unionism is outdated. But there's always a middle ground. Mike was trying to find it.
We had the leader of a unionist party suggesting transfers to a nationalist party. That is significant.
We had Eastwood talking at the UUP conference. All good things. Unionism is a dying concept, always was, so it's possible that forward thinking Unionists see it best to look for a place at the table in a positive fashion rather than being dragged kicking and screaming out of 1690 and into 2017.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
More out of political expediency IMO, as both parties struggling to make an electoral impact in this era including on Thursday, a combined vote of just under 25% but there is im merit in talking to the more reasonable unionists I suppose as the possibility of the border poll/a UI beckons.
Also another take here
There may be a certain crossover of posters I believe?
Nationalism's Stormont gender balance - 15 female MLAs out of 39, which equates to 38.4 per cent - is more progressive than that of the Dáil (where 35 of 158 TDanna, or 22 per cent, are female) and that of Westminster (where 191 of 650 MPs, or 29 per cent, are female). In fact, it is much closer to that of European beacons like Sweden. Sweden's parliament has a very impressive female-participation figure of 44 per cent. Meanwhile, patriarchal and ageing political unionism lags well behind. Seven of the forty MLAs now designated as 'Unionist' are women; that equates to just 17.5 per cent. It is an ideology of the past both in talk and action.
Clearly, the ideals of equality, diversity and progressivism, which are the future, aren't just talking points within nationalism. They are in effect; nationalism is a much more accessible philosophy for women and, indeed, others such as the LGBT community. Actually, during BBC's coverage on Friday night, Caitríona Ruane interestingly spoke of female and LGBT members of the Protestant community giving their first-preference vote to Sinn Féin on the basis of the party's equality programme.
In saying that, I do still find Sinn Féin's position on reproductive rights to be regressive and in need of swift upgrade.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 06/03/2017 at 10:35 AM.
Charming Wolfie. Flirting with UKIP again?Originally Posted by Wolfman
You tell me. You claim you want a UI yet haven't made any effort to add any of NI whatsoever. You must realise it creates the impression that you, er, don't really want the UI.Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Seen this recent opinion poll?You are living in Puckoon if you think a majority in the South don't want unification
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0304/85...nited-ireland/
Aye, just like you're “sure” about the above.Anyway, I'm sure you'll campaign real hard against it should the time come
As I said, there are two broad and linked reasons why Brexit will hurt the South. You rely on trade links with Britain, and Brussels has so many other and bigger problems to deal with. I'm neither suggesting anything particularly controversial, nor implying that you need to follow the Brits out of the EU or similar.And I still don't understand why the EU would disregard us, a sovereign member, wrt Brexit given the effect it will have on us, a sovereign member
See above. I'm saying you'll hurt economically, not that you'll follow Britain's lead anywhere. I don't think [cod] psychology comes into it.Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke
I think your swagger is misplaced, but thanks for the invite and purple proseBasically GR there is a swagger coming into the stroll of the south of the border collective, which you would be very welcome to join in on presently however we may well make you pay well to join later, post 2020 for example
SF bossed the election, it would be unbelievably self-disciplined if they didn't gloat a bit. Let's see what sort of attitude they display to setting a budget, running health and education and the rest.SF, don't gloat, don't display a trace of the hideous attitude they displayed toward you and your voters back at them and theirs
Calm down. Unionism doesn't die by falling below 50%+1. Gerrymandering ended decades ago.Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
McCann (like Tony Benn) may be happy to spend more time on politics after retirementI still think the assembly will lose a very astute, progressive intellect (and important subversive) in McCann...Mike Nesbitt has clearly demonstrated that there is logic and strategic wisdom in tactical cross-community vote transference. That is sure to come more into play in the future. Maybe not such a bad legacy, after all?...
Agreed, Nesbitt logically had to suggest a deal with Eastwood if they were to have any chance of replacing the bigger two. But before you get too carried away, the bloke's a bigot. Not because of trivia like his attitude to the Irish Language, or even the previous Unionist pact. But simply as the way he allowed Alliance to be intimidated after Long ousted Robinson was hard to forgive.
I make it eight (Barton, Bradley, Bunting, Cameron, Foster, Lockhart, McIlveen, Sugden).Seven of the forty MLAs now designated as 'Unionist' are women
Up to a point. Those nicely accessorised pink outfits look a lot like the past when they're hanging out in a graveyard with old bruisers in balaclavas. How politicians deal with practical problems in health, education, housing is more important than age, gender or style.Originally Posted by BacksToTheWall
I'd guess Brexit. Both the big two were content to go with a sectarian headcount. DUP lost very little support within Unionism as a result. SF realising they needed to make more effort to get the Nat vote share up above 40% (although still lower than in every election from 2001-10) was crucial.Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
Overall, as my old mate Bernadette McAliskey almost said, some of the bad guys lost. Not enough of them, alas
Last edited by Gather round; 06/03/2017 at 10:44 AM.
So not that much more then?Originally Posted by DI
As Unionism got about 5.5% more vote share than Nationalism and women voters are a roughly similar proportion of both blocs (if anything higher among Unionist voters who tend to be older), maybe not as "accessible" (ie popular) as you claim.
Clearly the POC rows reflect badly on the DUP. If they go and we just have a free vote or even referendum to pass gay marriage and abortion rights, that basically gets rid of the distinction. In any case, if U & N have philosophies (as opposed to single policies) they're about ethnicity/ nationality with everything else secondary.
I don't doubt Ruane's anecdotage. As you know, it's matched by tales of devout Catholics voting for the DUP and probably isn't statistically significant (are there any studies?).
Great. Join a UI, get even less progressive politics[compare]the Dáil (where 35 of 158 TDanna, or 22 per cent, are female) and...Westminster (where 191 of 650 MPs, or 29 per cent, are female)
Last edited by Gather round; 06/03/2017 at 11:16 AM.
As pointed out in the article's concluding line, a majority of those polled in that particular poll still favour unity when you delete the undecideds. There'll be no option for undecideds on a referendum ballot; it'll be a straight "yes" or "no" question.
Also, the pollsters don't seem to have factored the economic benefits and financial incentives of unity into their equation or question; they've factored only their estimation of what they think the cost to the Irish government may be based (oddly and inexplicably) upon current UK government budget accounts. So, they've not really properly catered for the context of any unity scenario fairly and have loaded the question with a particularly negative bias.
Also, it's a really peculiar means of working out the supposed cost of unity. Current cost figures to the UK government are the costs of partition; they're not necessarily the future cost of reunification. You can't just assume the exact same economic scenario will exist post-unity when you will by then have removed one of the most significant stifling factors upon economic recovery, development and prosperity for the island economy; that being the border. The island can't afford partition as it is and Brexit will only make things worse. The border has impoverished people on both sides, but especially those in the north and around the border region in latter times.
Here's another southern poll from last July where two thirds of those polled said they'd back unity tomorrow: http://www.thejournal.ie/united-irel...01609-Jul2016/
I used the term "majority-unionism". Majority-unionism is dead. As in, unionism has lost its long-standing and psychologically-significant parliamentary majority. That's beyond dispute.Calm down. Unionism doesn't die by falling below 50%+1. Gerrymandering ended decades ago.
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.
To be honest, I suspect the tie-less and leather jacket-wearing McCann probably felt a bit out of place in Stormont, with its stuffy norms when it comes to shirts, ties (although I acknowledge there has been no formal stipulation on wearing these since last year), jackets/blazers and so forth. Of course, his politics obviously had the effect of isolating and alienating him in the chamber too, maybe even more so. Subversive/alternative commentary and grassroots activism/agitation probably suit McCann better than parliamentarism with all its suffocating procedures and formalities, as he may see it.McCann (like Tony Benn) may be happy to spend more time on politics after retirement
Ha, don't worry; there was never any fear of me getting carried away engaging in apologia for Mike Nesbitt, so criticise him all you like.Agreed, Nesbitt logically had to suggest a deal with Eastwood if they were to have any chance of replacing the bigger two. But before you get too carried away, the bloke's a bigot. Not because of trivia like his attitude to the Irish Language, or even the previous Unionist pact. But simply as the way he allowed Alliance to be intimidated after Long ousted Robinson was hard to forgive.
Sorry, aye, that brings it to 20 per cent. I'd overlooked the independent Sugden. 20 per cent is still pretty poor, mind.I make it eight (Barton, Bradley, Bunting, Cameron, Foster, Lockhart, McIlveen, Sugden).
It's not just a superficial or cosmetic matter though. Having more female representatives is a material indication of practical improvements in society, or a particular political sphere, and of enhanced socio-political mobility for at least one social group that has been historically marginalised from public and societal (rather than "traditional" familial) life and roles. More women are now achieving through education in ways that only men tended to do in the not-so-distant past, for example. That's obviously something that still requires work in society overall, but the effects are already more apparent in the more progressive political spheres.How politicians deal with practical problems in health, education, housing is more important than age, gender or style.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 06/03/2017 at 12:23 PM.
Is this a serious question? Are you unaware of the equality strife that existed since 1969 onward and the resulting constitutional settlement in 1998.
There were various ways and means to change the partition (Was it Heath or Wilson who proposed jettisoning South Armagh?), but what realistically would be achieved or how would a Southern Govt have a achieved it? DO you think a unilateral invasion a la Crimea would have proved to you that we reeeeeeally want reunification?
You play the cards you've been dealt!
A classic "leading question is leading"... You realise that on the ballot paper that the question will not mention costs right? And €9bn? What will cost €9bn? Is that an ongoing cost? Is it once off? Pointless question.
As it happens did see it. And I thought it's publication timing was interesting.
I also never heard of the crowd who conducted it and I'm sure they'll publish many more conveniently timed polls in the future.
As it stands though if you discount the don't knows, because they won't count in any ballot, the result is No: 49.54 Yes:50.46
A slim majority but a majority. Similar to what Poots claimed "victory" on.
The fact that the don't knows outnumbered the For/Againsts show that there is an emotional tie that gets muddied with cash. Again, there's no point debating a united Ireland on costs because it will never be fight on costs. It is a pure and unadulterated emotional issue. Also, €9bn is a steal based on the non-apportioned costs. 1.8m extra population. Proper reasoned spatial strategies abound!
Aye, the success of the EU ad it's member states. Of which we are one. FG are dealing with Europe on behalf of NI as well because London doesn't give a crap. NI is at the forefront of our governments negotiation stance.
Aye, just like you're “sure” about the above.
As I said, there are two broad and linked reasons why Brexit will hurt the South. You rely on trade links with Britain, and Brussels has so many other and bigger problems to deal with. I'm neither suggesting anything particularly controversial, nor implying that you need to follow the Brits out of the EU or similar.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
As far as I'm aware, there is significant support for the pro-choice position within political nationalism and at party grassroots levels (especially within SF, where cumainn have discussed and tabled motions for radical overhaul) and I would imagine that will become official policy in the not-so-distant future. Perhaps I'm being optimistic, but we shall see... Can the same be said for political unionism, which appears to be inherently conservative, reactionary and traditionalist, or permanently stuck in the past when it's not being dragged out of it by others, in other words? I perceive attitudes to abortion and reproductive rights to be more hardline generally within political unionism. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not sure what you mean. I meant that accessing political nationalism's upper ceilings evidently appears to be easier for women (seeing as a significantly greater proportion of women have done so) than the passage for women generally to the top brass of political unionism.As Unionism got about 5.5% more vote share than Nationalism and women voters are a roughly similar proportion of both blocs (if anything higher among Unionist voters who tend to be older), maybe not as "accessible" (ie popular) as you claim.
My republicanism or nationalism is based on rational, economic, political, social, historical, cultural and emotional factors. All are crucial, as far as I'm concerned.Clearly the POC rows reflect badly on the DUP. If they go and we just have a free vote or even referendum to pass gay marriage and abortion rights, that basically gets rid of the distinction. In any case, if U & N have philosophies (as opposed to single policies) they're about ethnicity/ nationality with everything else secondary.
It was anecdotal, admittedly, and I'm unaware of any studies, nor did Ruane refer to any. It was simply based upon her experience from having purportedly talked with Protestant women and Protestant members of the LGBT community on the doorsteps in the run-up to the election.I don't doubt Ruane's anecdotage. As you know, it's matched by tales of devout Catholics voting for the DUP and probably isn't statistically significant (are there any studies?).
Ha, the stuffy southern establishment could do with a shake-up too, but that is afoot, if not underway.Great. Join a UI, get even less progressive politics
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 06/03/2017 at 12:26 PM.
Another poll.
http://www.thejournal.ie/northern-ir...72747-Mar2017/
Anything but. Just hoping their bigoted voters take note and go back to the country they're so fixated on...
Who's 'You'? Did you not notice 30 years of the Troubles?You tell me. You claim you want a UI yet haven't made any effort to add any of NI whatsoever. You must realise it creates the impression that you, er, don't really want the UI.
This as ever makes no sense. If anything the EU will do more for Ireland as they don't want other countries feeling susceptible to having to leave!As I said, there are two broad and linked reasons why Brexit will hurt the South. You rely on trade links with Britain, and Brussels has so many other and bigger problems to deal with. I'm neither suggesting anything particularly controversial, nor implying that you need to follow the Brits out of the EU or similar.
Except the whole territory was based on this and its legacy doesn't just disappear overnight FFS.Unionism doesn't die by falling below 50%+1. Gerrymandering ended decades ago.
There's no way Foster's a 'woman'!I make it eight (Barton, Bradley, Bunting, Cameron, Foster, Lockhart, McIlveen, Sugden).
You do realise there's far more parties and candidates standing...I'd guess Brexit. Both the big two were content to go with a sectarian headcount. DUP lost very little support within Unionism as a result. SF realising they needed to make more effort to get the Nat vote share up above 40% (although still lower than in every election from 2001-10) was crucial.
More drivel that makes no sense.Overall, as my old mate Bernadette McAliskey almost said, some of the bad guys lost.
Referring to Sweden as the "rape capital of Europe" is not merely to grossly simplify reality; it is to either completely misinterpret or misrepresent the statistics and how they are recorded, which is different from other European states on account of definition (and that difference is actually a result of progressive policy and attitudes aimed at protecting women).
The Swedish government explains here: http://www.government.se/articles/20...ime-in-sweden/
Also, see this response by the BBC to the claims recently by Donald Trump and Nigel Farage that Sweden/Malmö is "the rape capital of Europe" (with immigrants being disingenuously blamed for what is a misrepresentation anyway): http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39056786Originally Posted by The Swedish Government
Originally Posted by BBCBroader social and political attitudes on the social constructions of sex and gender don't see things that way - the biological reality that sexuality, sex and gender are spectral or on a continuum rather than being binary - and are usually found to be playing catch-up on biology and science: http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943In any case, aren't we all gender neutral these days so what does it matter
It's easy to be frivolous or facetious for those of us who have had no experience of marginalisation or ostracisation on the basis of perceived sex or gender, but those social constructions still have very profound, restrictive and oppressive moral, social, legal, economic, political and cultural consequences for millions of people around the globe.
See, for example:
-http://genderbinary.wikidot.com/gend...y-outside-mold
-http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchang...-binary-system
On the general topic of Protestant republicans, here is a very loosely-related recent piece I came across in the Irish Times on modern-day Protestant nationalists in Ireland and the search for their radical history: http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/bo...ists-1.2987749I would say the number of Protestants voting for SF would be minuscule
It may interest.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 06/03/2017 at 2:02 PM.
Cheers for that link to that article Danny. That book goes on the wishlist now.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Bookmarks