Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

alastair · 23-04-2014 12:07pm

Opinion poll indicates NI voters would reject Irish unity if the poll was held tomorrow.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Indicates to me that people are thinking about Unity and the timing of it and are not necessarily opposed to it.

Heh. Ehh, no. SF doublethink at its best.

alastair · 23-04-2014 12:15pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Now it's my turn to ask...is that the best you can come up with? :rolleyes:

In response to that guff? At the moment; yeah. But I do acknowledge it's deserving of more extensive ridicule.

Happyman42 · 23-04-2014 1:26pm

alastair wrote: »

Heh. Ehh, no. SF doublethink at its best.

If you qualify a question, you qualify it for a reason. The question was qualified here to get a particular sensationalist headline. Dubious.

alastair wrote: »

In response to that guff? At the moment; yeah. But I do acknowledge it's deserving of more extensive ridicule.

I wouldn't expect anything else from somebody who is happy to doff the hat, that is why I only expect change as generations change.

alastair · 23-04-2014 1:38pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

If you qualify a question, you qualify it for a reason. The question was qualified here to get a particular sensationalist headline. Dubious.

The question wasn't qualified at all. It's taking a measure of voter sentiment now. The same as every other poll of voting intentions. The 'dubious' and 'sensationalist' stuff is a product of your vivid imagination, nothing more.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I wouldn't expect anything else from somebody who is happy to doff the hat.

:P You're here all week I take it? Who am I supposed to be doffing my hat to? If you hadn't noticed, the people of Ireland haven't been convinced by your particular 'ideology', half-baked and all that it is, so unless the entire electorate are also 'doffing their hats', I'd have to say, rather than doffing your hat, you're talking out of it.

Happyman42 wrote: »

that is why I only expect change as generations change.

Your expectations are a tad, eh, optimistic.

Happyman42 · 23-04-2014 1:51pm

alastair wrote: »

It's taking a measure of voter sentiment now.

Now you are getting it. Which is why the headline is wrong and misleading without the same qualification...'if the poll was held tomorrow'

:P You're here all week I take it? Who am I supposed to be doffing my hat to? If you hadn't noticed, the people of Ireland haven't been convinced by your particular 'ideology', half-baked and all that it is, so unless the entire electorate are also 'doffing their hats', I'd have to say, rather than doffing your hat, you're talking out of it.

If you are happy with the status quo on this island then you are happy to continue doffing your hat to those you consider to be better than you by virtue of birth.
And yes there are many in the Republic who would be happier if we continued to do that if the sentiments expressed in thread about bowing and kowtowing and re-entering the Commonwealth are anything to go by.

Your expectations are a tad, eh, optimistic.

Why would you say that? Look at how far belligerent Unionism has come in 20 years for instance.
I have every faith that that change of mindset will continue.

RED L4 0TH · 23-04-2014 2:13pm

alastair wrote: »

The headline is completely accurate. There's no other way of interpreting the poll findings.

Accurate in what way though?

Is it a question seeking out what people's political aspirations are, or is it a case of asking, 'which economy do you currently wish to be a part of' especially when the word 'tomorrow' is included?

gallag · 23-04-2014 2:54pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

We tried and failed to build a real republic here. It failed for many reasons, one of which was because the island was divided and a civil war mentality that didn't disappear for a long time. Par for the course for an island that is still divided.
A 'new' republic and a proper functioning republic can only be built after unity. It is nonsense to attempt again to build one without removing the impediments that brought the last one down.
It is galling to hear somebody who comes from a tradition (downtrodden even if it doesn't realise it itself) that has never even attempted to throw off the shackles of monarchy and privilege, criticise what we still fundamentally have.
They died in their thousands for it and even when the British say they will walk away from them when the time comes, they still cling to it, and still see themselves as servants to a monarchical system (ala the bowler hats, a direct reference to the class that serve the aristocracy).
I am convinced that fact is slowly sinking in though and genarational change will see a shift in attitude among Unionists, the Orange Order active numbers are slowly falling, which is as good an indicator as you can get of a mindset change.

At least we tried, and had a vision. We may have failed but the potential of what we have is many times better, and many of us still have that vision.

You seem obsessed with the Queen and the orange order, the royal family at best generates a bit of revenue and at worst costs a couple of quid a year, it does not affect my every day life also I don't really give a flying **** about the orange order, you must believe every unionist has a large picture of the queen above the fire and a sash around the neck.

Do you believe if Bertie had been in charge we in the north would be better of? Why can you not put your energy into a new republic that I might want to join you in? Why should I believe this new republic will be possible only with the added challenge of uniting the north? Why does it have to be in that order? If you can't do it now what will change if me family are dragged into it?

In your opinion what will this new Ireland look like? My earlier points for example, will my children be forced to learn a dead language? Secular education? Will it be a Catholic country? Health care? Flag and anthem? MPH or KPH? Thanks for taking the time to reply and please don't mention the queen, doffing my cap, 800 years or the orange order in your reply because frankly it is of no relevance to my life now or in the future of a potential new Ireland.

Richard · 23-04-2014 3:35pm

gallag wrote: »

You seem obsessed with the Queen and the orange order, the royal family at best generates a bit of revenue and at worst costs a couple of quid a year, it does not affect my every day life also I don't really give a flying **** about the orange order, you must believe every unionist has a large picture of the queen above the fire and a sash around the neck.

Do you believe if Bertie had been in charge we in the north would be better of? Why can you not put your energy into a new republic that I might want to join you in? Why should I believe this new republic will be possible only with the added challenge of uniting the north? Why does it have to be in that order? If you can't do it now what will change if me family are dragged into it?

In your opinion what will this new Ireland look like? My earlier points for example, will my children be forced to learn a dead language? Secular education? Will it be a Catholic country? Health care? Flag and anthem? MPH or KPH? Thanks for taking the time to reply and please don't mention the queen, doffing my cap, 800 years or the orange order in your reply because frankly it is of no relevance to my life now or in the future of a potential new Ireland.

+1

That's a very well written post.

Richard · 23-04-2014 3:40pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

If you are happy with the status quo on this island then you are happy to continue doffing your hat to those you consider to be better than you by virtue of birth.

That isn't a requirement of either being a British citizen, or being an Irish citizen living in NI.

And yes there are many in the Republic who would be happier if we continued to do that if the sentiments expressed in thread about bowing and kowtowing and re-entering the Commonwealth are anything to go by.

Maybe you should read up on the Commonwealth and what it is.

Why would you say that? Look at how far belligerent Unionism has come in 20 years for instance.
I have every faith that that change of mindset will continue.

That's true. Also true is how far non-belligerent Unionists and the rest have come.

alastair · 23-04-2014 5:02pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Now you are getting it. Which is why the headline is wrong and misleading without the same qualification...'if the poll was held tomorrow'

Except that there is no qualification. The headline is completely accurate.

Happyman42 wrote: »

If you are happy with the status quo on this island then you are happy to continue doffing your hat to those you consider to be better than you by virtue of birth.

LOL. That's some vivid imagination you've got going on. A nice unhealthy dose of inferiority complex for good measure, but wow - how delusional!

Happyman42 wrote: »

And yes there are many in the Republic who would be happier if we continued to do that if the sentiments expressed in thread about bowing and kowtowing and re-entering the Commonwealth are anything to go by.

And a failure of comprehension! But then that's not exactly unexpected.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why would you say that? Look at how far belligerent Unionism has come in 20 years for instance.
I have every faith that that change of mindset will continue.

You have to have faith. Particularly in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

alastair · 23-04-2014 5:05pm

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Accurate in what way though?

Is it a question seeking out what people's political aspirations are, or is it a case of asking, 'which economy do you currently wish to be a part of' especially when the word 'tomorrow' is included?

It was seeking information on voting intentions. And since all that matters with regard to the status of NI is voting intentions, it's the best measure of whether the voters will opt for the status quo or otherwise. I'm not sure what your economic angle is supposed to imply, but all the poll was asking was voter intention.

Karl Stein · 23-04-2014 5:16pm

gallag wrote: »

What you need to understand is if I prescribe to a 32 county Ireland I will no longer be a unionist, I will by default be a republican.

But you'd be of Unionist heritage and would surely still want to do things you associate with Unionism, surely?

The only one argument the more level headed republicans on here made that piped my interest is that in a 32 county Ireland it would not be ireland absorbing N.I, it would be a new system,

Absolutely.

new non nepotism corruption riddled government,

Dificult to achieve but yes that would be great wouldn't it?

no Vatican grip and a new world class secular education without dead language classes taking up the day, world class free health care, new flag and anthem, new tax systems with the goal of wealth distribution instead of the Irish children picking up the tab, new legal, justice and policing systems etc etc etc.

I'm cool with all that. I think people should be entitled to learn Irish if they want though.

Basically ripping up the book and starting again,

Yep.

if you are now telling me I picked that up wrong and the best this new Ireland has to offer me and my children is a rerun of the few years of boom of the Celtic tiger, where a few got rich to the detriment of the next generation I.e if you get your way my children then we have nothing more to discuss.

Oh I do not subscribe to boom and bust and then have those who profited least pick up the tab. I was just making the point that many Unionists would rather be less well off and living under the auspices of the UK in a Nationalist majority NI than be part of a UI where they'd have a hell of a lot more control over their destiny imo.

RED L4 0TH · 23-04-2014 5:50pm

alastair wrote: »

It was seeking information on voting intentions.

What factors though are influencing such voting intentions? Why use the word 'tomorrow'?

Q4 is interesting as well. As to when a poll should be held, a majority seem to want a poll either within a year, or from 1 to 7 years in the future.

alastair · 23-04-2014 6:10pm

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

What factors though are influencing such voting intentions?

We don't know, and they weren't asked.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Why use the word 'tomorrow'?

Because it is as good as any other point in the future, is 'next week/month/year/decade' any more instructive as to voting intention?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Q4 is interesting as well. As to when a poll should be held, a majority seem to want a poll either within a year, or from 1 to 7 years in the future.

When you combine the two options together - yes. Though that doesn't imply that they would vote one way or another. The actual timing of the poll will be determined by the chances of it becoming an actual viable contest, not on a majority wanting a poll, so it's unlikely to happen in that timeframe.

RED L4 0TH · 23-04-2014 6:42pm

alastair wrote: »

We don't know, and they weren't asked.

Would have been useful if they were asked I think. Not knowing why doesn't make the outcome from the poll helpful really IMO.

Because it is as good as any other point in the future, is 'next week/month/year/decade' any more instructive as to voting intention?

Don't you think a person considering themselves a nationalist when reading the question and seeing 'tomorrow', might think - 'ok I aspire to a UI, but currently the RoI economically is a disaster, so I'll say no for now and see how things turn out'..?

When you combine the two options together - yes. Though that doesn't imply that they would vote one way or another. The actual timing of the poll will be determined by the chances of it becoming an actual viable contest, not on a majority wanting a poll, so it's unlikely to happen in that timeframe.

Shouldn't one be held regardless of the outcome? It's been 16 years since the GFA.

alastair · 23-04-2014 6:57pm

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Would have been useful if they were asked I think. Not knowing why doesn't make the outcome from the poll helpful really IMO.

That's the nature of polls. Do you expect a consistent and comprehensive set of reasons why voters intend voting the way they do in any given election? The reasons are multi-fold, and don't impact on measuring voter intention.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Don't you think a person considering themselves a nationalist when reading the question and seeing 'tomorrow', might think - 'ok I aspire to a UI, but currently the RoI economically is a disaster, so I'll say no for now and see how things turn out'..?

Some might. But they still end up with the same voting intent. Who's to say that we won't still have a poor economy in ten years time?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Shouldn't one be held regardless of the outcome? It's been 16 years since the GFA.

Why hold a pointless referendum? The GFA made clear the basis that a poll would happen under, and everyone signed up to that.

gallag · 23-04-2014 7:16pm

Karl Stein wrote: »

But you'd be of Unionist heritage and would surely still want to do things you associate with Unionism, surely?

Absolutely.

Dificult to achieve but yes that would be great wouldn't it?

I'm cool with all that. I think people should be entitled to learn Irish if they want though.

Yep.

Oh I do not subscribe to boom and bust and then have those who profited least pick up the tab. I was just making the point that many Unionists would rather be less well off and living under the auspices of the UK in a Nationalist majority NI than be part of a UI where they'd have a hell of a lot more control over their destiny imo.

Thanks for your reply, so the main question now is why wait? Why don't nationalists turn their attention to fixing the republic, something they can do now? Am not saying give up on your nationlist aspirations, just get the house ready before you ask us to move in!

TheHappyChappy · 23-04-2014 7:18pm

why do people need massive gaps between lines when posting?

Karl Stein · 23-04-2014 7:26pm

gallag wrote: »

Thanks for your reply, so the main question now is why wait? Why don't nationalists turn their attention to fixing the republic, something they can do now? Am not saying give up on your nationlist aspirations, just get the house ready before you ask us to move in!

I'm not sure the appetite is there at the moment - the south is just emerging from a pretty bad recession and there are a lot of people in the north that are happy with the status quo. I also think it would require a majority vote in the north followed by all the stakeholders, the British, Irish, Nationalists, Unionists, the whole shebang, getting around a table and drawing up a roadmap.

That's some time off imo.

Happyman42 · 23-04-2014 7:38pm

gallag wrote: »

You seem obsessed with the Queen and the orange order, the royal family at best generates a bit of revenue and at worst costs a couple of quid a year, it does not affect my every day life also I don't really give a flying **** about the orange order, you must believe every unionist has a large picture of the queen above the fire and a sash around the neck.

Do you believe if Bertie had been in charge we in the north would be better of? Why can you not put your energy into a new republic that I might want to join you in? Why should I believe this new republic will be possible only with the added challenge of uniting the north? Why does it have to be in that order? If you can't do it now what will change if me family are dragged into it?

In your opinion what will this new Ireland look like? My earlier points for example, will my children be forced to learn a dead language? Secular education? Will it be a Catholic country? Health care? Flag and anthem? MPH or KPH? Thanks for taking the time to reply and please don't mention the queen, doffing my cap, 800 years or the orange order in your reply because frankly it is of no relevance to my life now or in the future of a potential new Ireland.

I'm obsessed by the Queen and the Orange order in terms of the damage of what they stand for did here on this island and is still doing. Of course it is easy to defend the Queen by the usual trite 'she brings in some much needed tourist revenue' but I have always been careful to say the monarchical system or privilege because it is a system, takes includes a whole lot more than the queen or her immediate family. Britain is still very much governed by class jut listen to debates in Britain around the subject and you cannot ignore it.
No I do not think anybody would have been better off under Bertie, I have no illusions about how our system works either.
I do believe we (the people) have the power to change how we are governed though.
I believe in the notion of a 'republic' and I see it as being very possible that we can build a new one in the near future.
Your children won't be 'forced' to do anything in that republic but will have choice.
Yes, education will be secular on the whole island.
It hasn't been a Catholic country for a while.
Flags are not a big issue to me.
Health Care and Care in general are priorities to get right imo.

I'm glad the OO are not important because a sectarian organisation like that will rightly be outlawed if it doesn't reform itself.

RED L4 0TH · 23-04-2014 8:57pm

alastair wrote: »

That's the nature of polls. Do you expect a consistent and comprehensive set of reasons why voters intend voting the way they do in any given election? The reasons are multi-fold, and don't impact on measuring voter intention.

It was an opinion poll (BBC Spotlight's), not an election. Question(s) could have been added if the pollsters wished to do so.

Who's to say that we won't still have a poor economy in ten years time?

We don't know.

Why hold a pointless referendum?

What makes it pointless?

alastair · 23-04-2014 9:24pm

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

It was an opinion poll (BBC Spotlight's), not an election. Question(s) could have been added if the pollsters wished to do so.

They could - and other questions were included. But what question do you think would capture (in a poll format) all the possible motivations for why people chose their voting position?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

What makes it pointless?

It would be defeated by a large majority. No-one really disputes this. So it would be a pointless exercise.

RED L4 0TH · 23-04-2014 9:46pm

alastair wrote: »

They could - and other questions were included. But what question do you think would capture (in a poll format) all the possible motivations for why people chose their voting position?

I meant questions asking why (economic, political aspiration etc) people gave their answers to the following one:

Q.3 If there was a referendum tomorrow would you vote for...?

It's the question whose answer that generated the publicity about the poll wasn't it?

Q5 and on were about the flag issue.

It would be defeated by a large majority. No-one really disputes this. So it would be a pointless exercise.

Large majority=pointless. I don't follow. I doubt if Unionism's first reaction to such a result would be 'ah, that was pointless'. What would 60%/40%, 55/45, 53/47 etc be?

Happyman42 · 24-04-2014 12:05am

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Q4 is interesting as well. As to when a poll should be held, a majority seem to want a poll either within a year, or from 1 to 7 years in the future.

That is the interesting part, why would you want a poll at all if you are happy with the status quo?

'I don't agree with divorce but lets hold a referendum on it anyway'.

alastair · 24-04-2014 12:16am

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is the interesting part, why would you want a poll at all if you are happy with the status quo?

I'm going to take a wild guess here and suggest that it might involve a desire to assert your vote for continuance of the union?

Happyman42 · 24-04-2014 12:23am

alastair wrote: »

I'm going to take a wild guess here and suggest that it might involve a desire to assert your vote for continuance of the union?

Nah...sure you are flat out telling us that could happen tomorrow. Must be another reason...I wonder what it could be?

alastair · 24-04-2014 12:24am

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

I meant questions asking why (economic, political aspiration etc) people gave their answers to the following one:

It's the question whose answer that generated the publicity about the poll wasn't it?

Q5 and on were about the flag issue.

I understood what you meant. Again - what question would you ask that could be able to account for all the possible rationales for voting one way or another? Polls aren't by their nature suited to open- answers.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

ILarge majority=pointless. I don't follow. I doubt if Unionism's first reaction to such a result would be 'ah, that was pointless'. What would 60%/40%, 55/45, 53/47 etc be?

The poll is pointless unless there's a chance that it might pull a majority yes vote. No-one believes it would do so at this point. When it reaches that point, a poll then is mandated.

alastair · 24-04-2014 12:25am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nah...sure you are flat out telling us that could happen tomorrow. Must be another reason...I wonder what it could be?

I am telling you that - based on the polls. Why would you require a different reason when presented with the bleeding obvious? There's only two reasons to vote.

Happyman42 · 24-04-2014 12:38am

alastair wrote: »

I am telling you that - based on the polls. Why would you require a different reason when presented with the bleeding obvious? There's only two reasons to vote.

Because there is a reason why and it is very clear.
Many of the respondents believe that the time (tomorrow) isn't right, but it will not always be so.

Perfectly logical extrapolation from those results and you CANNOT extrapolate that any sizeable majority rejects a United Ireland out of hand,

But then logic isn't a strong suit in media and on forums when you want to infer dubious results.

alastair · 24-04-2014 12:52am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Because there is a reason why and it is very clear.
Many of the respondents believe that the time (tomorrow) isn't right, but it will not always be so.

There's nothing in the polls that suggests that. Look at the political breakdown of the 'when do you think the poll should take place' answers. There's no linkage between when people want a poll, and what way they intend to vote.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Perfectly logical extrapolation from those results and you CANNOT extrapolate that any sizeable majority rejects a United Ireland out of hand,

But you can certainly state that a sizeable majority of voters intend rejecting a united Ireland, as measured by their voting intention.

Happyman42 wrote: »

But then logic isn't a strong suit in media and on forums when you want to infer dubious results.

Nothing dubious about the results tbh - they're pretty much what everyone expected.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/border-survey-findings-leave-politicians-split-no-surprise-there-then-28759985.html
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2010/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html

Karl Stein · 24-04-2014 12:59am

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm glad the OO are not important because a sectarian organisation like that will rightly be outlawed if it doesn't reform itself.

I agree that the OO is a nasty little outfit populated by dullards, bigots and sectarians but outlawing it would surely play into its persecution/superiority complex and siege mentality and could well have the opposite effect of getting rid.

I say let the OO die a natural death like conservative Catholicism.

Happyman42 · 24-04-2014 1:16am

alastair wrote: »

But you can certainly state that a sizeable majority of voters intend rejecting a united Ireland, as measured by their voting intention.

There you go again, forgetting the 'if a poll was held tomorrow' qualifier.

Karl Stein wrote: »

I agree that the OO is a nasty little outfit populated by dullards, bigots and sectarians but outlawing it would surely play into its persecution/superiority complex and siege mentality and could well have the opposite effect of getting rid.

I say let the OO die a natural death like conservative Catholicism.

Everybody will have to leave stuff behind and pandering to a sectarian organisation would be suicidal for any new republic.
Stand up for what is right from the get go, 'Tough titty' I would say to thoe looking to preserve that particular divisive and sectarian institution.

Karl Stein · 24-04-2014 1:33am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Everybody will have to leave stuff behind and pandering to a sectarian organisation would be suicidal for any new republic.
Stand up for what is right from the get go, 'Tough titty' I would say to thoe looking to preserve that particular divisive and sectarian institution.

I think it would have the opposite effect and only cause it to dig its heels in.

Sure we'll agree to disagree. Not much of that going on here.

And with that, I'm out. Enjoy.

junder · 24-04-2014 1:35am

Happyman42 wrote: »

There you go again, forgetting the 'if a poll was held tomorrow' qualifier.

Everybody will have to leave stuff behind and pandering to a sectarian organisation would be suicidal for any new republic.
Stand up for what is right from the get go, 'Tough titty' I would say to thoe looking to preserve that particular divisive and sectarian institution.

I guess your republic has failed even before it was created, personally speaking IF there where ever to be any negotiations over unification, one of my criterias will be the protection of those institutions that my community holds as important to its culture

alastair · 24-04-2014 1:41am

Happyman42 wrote: »

There you go again, forgetting the 'if a poll was held tomorrow' qualifier.

It's no qualifier. It's a poll of voter intentions. And it tallies with previous polls - including long term preferences. 2010 NILT survey:

Do you think the long-term policy for Northern Ireland should be for it…

%

to remain part of the United Kingdom with direct rule 15
to remain part of the United Kingdom with devolved government 58
or, to reunify with the rest of Ireland? 16
Independent state 3
Other answer 3
Don't know 6

Happyman42 · 24-04-2014 1:48am

junder wrote: »

I guess your republic has failed even before it was created, personally speaking IF there where ever to be any negotiations over unification, one of my criterias will be the protection of those institutions that my community holds as important to its culture

Can't be that important, it's membership has been in steady decline.

alastair wrote: »

It's no qualifier. It's a poll of voter intentions.

...about what they would do 'tomorrow'.

alastair · 24-04-2014 1:54am

Happyman42 wrote: »

...about what they would do 'tomorrow'.

About how they would vote in a referendum. The date of the vote is no qualifier. It's the voter intent that matters.

Happyman42 · 24-04-2014 9:29am

alastair wrote: »

About how they would vote in a referendum. The date of the vote is no qualifier. It's the voter intent that matters.

If I asked you 'Would you vote for Fianna Fail' in a Yes or No poll, then I would expect to get a good overall picture of the electorate's ideological stance on that issue.

If I ask 'Would you vote for Fianna Fail if a poll was held tomorrow' I get an entirely different answer related to current situation impinging on a voter's decision. I only get an impression of what they will do tomorrow. And I also imply that voter intent is liable to change if the situation influencing their vote on the 'morrow' changes.

The only thing you can say for definite is that 'tomorrow' is not the time for some of those polled to vote for Fianna Fail.

The next question in the BBC poll, 'when do you think a poll should be held' shed's light on the nuances of the first question and the phrase that qualifies the question.

How you want to interpret those 'nuances' is a matter of debate.
In my opinion I don't think I have ever seen or been aware of a group of voters, happy with the status quo, 'requesting' a referendum to be held on that issue. Therefore I can infer that that electorate, who think a referendum on a UI should be held within a given timeframe, expects the impediments governing their decision 'tomorrow' to change.

alastair · 24-04-2014 9:51am

Happyman42 wrote: »

If I asked you 'Would you vote for Fianna Fail' in a Yes or No poll, then I would expect to get a good overall picture of the electorate's ideological stance on that issue.

If I ask 'Would you vote for Fianna Fail if a poll was held tomorrow' I get an entirely different answer related to current situation impinging on a voter's decision. I only get an impression of what they will do tomorrow. And I also imply that voter intent is liable to change if the situation influencing their vote on the 'morrow' changes.

Except that the poll isn't intended to capture 'ideological stances' - it's capturing voter intention. I'm sure that people might hold some affection for green policies, but if they don't intend to vote for the Green Party, then that's a rejection of the Greens by the voters. The poll, and headline, are accurate and straightforward.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The only thing you can say for definite is that 'tomorrow' is not the time for some of those polled to vote for Fianna Fail.

And that the FF option has been rejected by those voters.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The next question in the BBC poll, 'when do you think a poll should be held' shed's light on the nuances of the first question and the phrase that qualifies the question.

No it doesn't. If you extrapolate out from political ideology, there's nothing to suggest that those poll timing preferences have any influence on voter preference. This is unsurprising, given that you get pretty much the same results on voter intention from previous polls (with different, or no stated poll times).

Happyman42 wrote: »

How you want to interpret those 'nuances' is a matter of debate.
In my opinion I don't think I have ever seen or been aware of a group of voters, happy with the status quo, 'requesting' a referendum to be held on that issue. Therefore I can infer that that electorate, who think a referendum on a UI should be held within a given timeframe, expects the impediments governing their decision 'tomorrow' to change.

No-one is requesting anything. Voters were asked when they felt was the best time for a poll. If you're seriously suggesting that those voters who support the status quo have no interest in their preference being captured in a referendum, then you've a very short memory (Eight, Twelfth, Twenty-Fifth Amendments anyone?). There's two voting possibilities in this poll, and it's important to both sides to assert their case.

junder · 24-04-2014 10:45am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Can't be that important, it's membership has been in steady decline.

...about what they would do 'tomorrow'.

Membership stands at about 30,000, then there are the other loyal orders and bands, and supporters I think you will find its still important to a significant amount of people

RED L4 0TH · 24-04-2014 10:53am

alastair wrote: »

I understood what you meant. Again - what question would you ask that could be able to account for all the possible rationales for voting one way or another? Polls aren't by their nature suited to open- answers.

People were given 4 options for Q3. A question explaining why they gave such answers could also have more than 1 option to choose, e.g.:

a. The NI economy is better than the RoI's currently
b. Political/ideological aspiration etc etc

The poll is pointless unless there's a chance that it might pull a majority yes vote. No-one believes it would do so at this point. When it reaches that point, a poll then is mandated.

You said this already. And as I've said, Unionism would never see such an outcome as 'pointless', especially when related to the continued existence, or not, of NI.

If you're seriously suggesting that those voters who support the status quo have no interest in their preference being captured in a referendum, then you've a very short memory

So why not have a border poll then? Why is it 'pointless' in light of what you said here?

alastair · 24-04-2014 11:02am

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

People were given 4 options for Q3. A question explaining why they gave such answers could also have more than 1 option to choose, e.g.:

a. The NI economy is better than the RoI's currently
b. Political/ideological aspiration etc etc

It's the etc, etc bit that doesn't work. You think you can encapsulate all rationales in 4 options?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You said this already. And as I've said, Unionism would never see such an outcome as 'pointless', especially when related to the continued existence, or not, of NI.

It doesn't really matter what unionists or nationalists think about it. The basis of calling the poll is clear and everyone has signed up to that basis.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

So why not have a border poll then? Why is it 'pointless' in light of what you said here?

Because the agreed basis for holding the poll is not to reaffirm ideological preferences, but to test them when there's a possibility of a shift in the majority.

RED L4 0TH · 24-04-2014 11:32am

alastair wrote: »

It's the etc, etc bit that doesn't work. You think you can encapsulate all rationales in 4 options?

Why should the pollsters account for 'all rationales'? 4 options were given for Q3. A limited number of what the pollsters think are the most common reasons could be given. Why are you so reticent about not wanting to know why people gave their responses to Q3?

It doesn't really matter what unionists or nationalists think about it.

Most of the people?

Because the agreed basis for holding the poll is not to reaffirm ideological preferences, but to test them when there's a possibility of a shift in the majority.

So you believe the following (your own words), aren't valid then in all cases?

If you're seriously suggesting that those voters who support the status quo have no interest in their preference being captured in a referendum

The 8th & 12th amendments were decided by 2 to 1 (large) majorities to maintain a status quo. Were they 'pointless'?

alastair · 24-04-2014 11:41am

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Why should the pollsters account for 'all rationales'? 4 options were given for Q3. A limited number of what the pollsters think are the most common reasons could be given. Why are you so reticent about not wanting to know why people gave their responses to Q3?

Question 3 has obvious and clearly limited set of possibilities. That's not the case for possible rationales for question 4.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Most of the people?

Correct - it's not a poll predicated on popularity, but on the potential for constitutional change.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

So you believe the following (your own words), aren't valid then in all cases??

In the case of rolling out this poll - no. As agreed in the GFA. As a motivation for voter participation - of course.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

The 8th & 12th amendments were decided by 2 to 1 (large) majorities to maintain a status quo. Were they 'pointless'?

No - because they weren't devised on anything like the same terms as the NI poll is. They were not predicated on the basis of their chances of passing or otherwise.

RED L4 0TH · 24-04-2014 12:13pm

alastair wrote: »

That's not the case for possible rationales for question 4.

How come? The pollsters framed Q3. It's in their power to frame a 'why did you' question similarly. Surely you yourself at some stage wondered why they answered as they did? Why are you reticent about this?

the potential for constitutional change.

A poll would establish such 'potential' in reality.

As a motivation for voter participation - of course.

Then have a poll.

They were not predicated on the basis of their chances of passing or otherwise.

So why not have a poll then? Do you not think that this question which keeps on emerging has an unsettling effect overall, and that a poll may end it for now? And if a closer result should emerge than currently being indicated, so what, that's the electorate's view on the matter.

alastair · 24-04-2014 12:43pm

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

How come? The pollsters framed Q3. It's in their power to frame a 'why did you' question similarly. Surely you yourself at some stage wondered why they answered as they did? Why are you reticent about this?.

I'm not remotely reticent. I've tried twice now to explain that the multiplicity of rationales can't be encapsulated in a limited number of options - unlike question 3. I'm not sure how to restate that fact.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

A poll would establish such 'potential' in reality.

It would. But it would be both costly and divisive without any benefit. No-one believes the poll would pass currently - even those advocating a border poll.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Then have a poll.

Making people happy isn't any sort of good reason for a poll.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

So why not have a poll then? Do you not think that this question which keeps on emerging has an unsettling effect overall, and that a poll may end it for now? And if a closer result should emerge than currently being indicated, so what, that's the electorate's view on the matter.

Because the conditions are not there for calling a poll. No, and no.

RED L4 0TH · 24-04-2014 1:01pm

alastair wrote: »

I'm not remotely reticent. I've tried twice now to explain that the multiplicity of rationales can't be encapsulated in a limited number of options - unlike question 3. I'm not sure how to restate that fact.

So you don't want to know why they gave the answers they did? Curious.

divisive

And if a poll is called, it's going to be that, regardless. If you're worried about division, would you ever call one yourself?

No, and no.

Reminds me of a certain PM in office from 1979 to 1990.

Happyman42 · 24-04-2014 1:10pm

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Reminds me of a certain PM in office from 1979 to 1990.

Indeed. You are now firmly in the realms of Alastair's curious Never Never Neverland.
I'm emigrating!

alastair · 24-04-2014 1:22pm

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

So you don't want to know why they gave the answers they did? Curious.

The real curious thing is why you have to resort to a straw man argument? I'm mildly interested in the whys, but accept that a poll can't capture them all. As already stated repeatedly.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

And if a poll is called, it's going to be that, regardless. If you're worried about division, would you ever call one yourself?.

There's not much divisiveness about the possibility of a united Ireland at the moment, because there's no popular demand for it amongst voters. I'd call a poll as soon as it looked like it was going to be anything other than a rubber stamp for the status quo.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Reminds me of a certain PM in office from 1979 to 1990.

You asked the questions - those are my answers.

alastair · 24-04-2014 1:24pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Indeed. You are now firmly in the realms of Alastair's curious Never Never C
I'm emigrating!

Says the man who's utopian republic can't emerge until it has an entire landmass to sustain it? I know where the advocate for a Neverland is in this thread.

Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

Comments