Crowdsourcing the European Parliament election

Crowdsourcing is where you outsource a task to an undefined, generally large group of people. Democracy is, in a way, a crowdsourcing method of choosing rulers, on the basis that the outcome of a choice made by a million people is, if not better, at least more representative than a choice made by fewer people.

Until the actual election though, anyone interested in knowing how it might turn out is usually limited to a few opinion polls. Happily, though, we have an alternative crowdsource that can provide an indication, via the betting public.

Paddy Power, a betting firm (aka bookie), allows people to place bets on the outcomes of future events, mostly sporting but also political, and the aggregated bets influence the odds. The bookie sets the odds to provide an incentive to betters while trying to avoid losing money. The odds set represent the bookie's best interpretation of the likelihood of an outcome based upon the collective 'wisdom' of the crowd. Since money is at stake people tend to 'vote' as accurately as they can, rather than on party political grounds.

The initial odds being quoted by Paddy Power to the question 'Who will win the most first preference votes?' in the European Parliament election in June is as follows:

Bairbre de Brun: 4-5
Diane Dodds: evens
Jim Nicholson: 10-1
Jim Allister: 14-1
Alban Maginness: 25-1
Steven Agnew: 80-1
Alliance Party: 80-1

[For betting novices, the fractional odds show the multiple of an original bet that the punter wins if the outcome occurs. In other words, if Bairbre de Brun tops the poll, a punter who placed their bet at those odds will get his original stake back, plus four-fifths of that stake, or 180% of the stake. A bet placed on Dodds will see a return of the stake plus its same value, or 200%. As the likelihood becomes less and less likely, the odds go up. If Steven Agnew tops the poll, whoever placed a bet on that happening will win back his stake, plus 80 times the stake.]

What this shows is that, irrespective of the spin and noise created by the political parties and the media, at this early point the average punter tends to think that Sinn Féin will top the poll in June.

This blog will revisit Paddy Power from time to time during the campaign to see how these odds change.

Paddy Power is also taking bets on the very interesting question of how many first preference votes Jim Allister will get. Here the results are:

0 - 10,000: 7-1
10,001 - 20,000: 9-2
20,001 - 30,000: 3-1
30,001 - 40,000: 9-4
40,001 - 50,000: 4-1
50,001 - 60,000: 6-1
60,001 or more: 4-1

These odds show that the average punter sees Allister most likely getting between 20,000 and 30,000 first preference votes, or between 3.5% and 5% depending on the turnout. There is some evidence (4-1) that some punters see him getting a considerably higher score, but it is not clear how many bets these odds are based on. As time goes on, and the number of bets placed increases, the odds should get clearer and the crowdsourcing more accurate. For the DUP, of course, the question of Allister's votes (which otherwise would probably be their votes) is of great importance.

As horse racing sometimes shows, crowdsourcing through betting is not always accurate, but at least it provides an alternative to the opinion polls. It will be interesting to see, when it is all over, how accurately the punters called it.

Unionists can do irony

The Andersonstown News on Monday carried a nice little example of the irrationality of the unionist position. The UDA (who nice unionists abhor, of course) ordered a man "out of the country" for alleged criminality.

But which 'country' was he ordered out of? The UK? Or just Northern Ireland? It was clearly the latter, which shows up the reality of the unionist position at its most ignorant – they are 'loyal' to a vision of Northern Ireland (the fantasy of 'Ulster') rather than to the UK. At their street-thug level they are really just 'little Ulsterites', and therefore an ideal complement to the political 'little Ulsterites' of the DUP.

Sammy Wilson, Minister for … what, exactly?

Well, his brief description on the Executive web site says that his responsibilities include:

"Planning control; environment and heritage; protection of the countryside; waste management; pollution control; wildlife protection; local government; local government reform; mineral resources (planning aspects); driver and vehicle testing and licensing; road safety and transport licensing and enforcement."

We already saw last year that his commitment to the 'driver and vehicle testing and licensing' part of his remit was close to nonexistent. The Minster responsible for road safety in Northern Ireland branded the law which saw him fined for riding his motorbike without tax or MoT as "absurd". And he was allowed to keep his job!

Today, the same Minister, wearing his hat as Minister responsible for the environment, has blocked a British government advertisement campaign on climate change, which urges people to reduce energy consumption and cut carbon dioxide output. Wilson wrote to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to say that the advertising campaign Act on CO2 "was not welcome". He explained that he did not believe in its message that "man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause of climate change" and that the campaign was contrary to his personal views.

Now since Mr Wilson's 'personal views' seem to be causing him great trouble in at least two of his areas of responsibility, one has to wonder why he is still in office.

But then, of course, DUP Minister's are never really expected to address the whole of their responsibilities – after all, Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure Gregory Campbell has responsibility, amongst other things, for sport and language diversity, which has not stopped him from using his position to largely ignore the most popular sport in Northern Ireland, and to block the Irish Language Act. The wife of the First Minister has caused worldwide outrage at her blatantly bigoted attitudes towards homosexuality, but at last she wasn't a Minister. Her husband and party leader, whose responsibilities include 'promoting and monitoring implementation of equality of opportunity' was slightly less than fulsome in his condemnation of her remarks.

The DUP in office has proved, time and time again, that they are motivated primarily by negativity – towards modern science, towards diversity, but mainly towards recognition of the Irish dimension of Northern Ireland and its people. The continuing support they receive from the unionist voters serves as a constant reminder of why Northern Ireland needs to be dismantled and consigned to history's dustbin.

Squabbling over chairs on the Titanic

For opponents of unionism, these days are almost surreal. It seems that nationalists and others do not have to do anything, because the unionists themselves are happy to tear each other apart.

The screen shots below shows the UUP, DUP and TUV websites as they appeared earlier today.

The UUP, apart from the almost obligatory criticism of Caitriona Ruane, manages to have three separate stories under News headlines that attack the DUP: 'Changing Your Tune Again, Jeffrey', 'UUP Not Losing Identity', and 'Diane Dodds Is Delusional':



The DUP focus more clearly on their tribal ppponents in the SDLP and Sinn Féin, but manage, nonetheless, to have at least two stories attacking the UUP; 'UUP negotiators prove their limited value once again', and 'McNarry wants to cut his own Minister's budget, says Hamilton'.



The TUV, despite (or because of?) its extreme views, manages to criticise the DUP in four of its six stories; 'Allister responds to DUP candidature in Europe', 'Thank you DUP!', '"Name and shame duplicitous politicians" – Allister' and 'DUP position on Eames-Bradley questioned'. In addition, in 'Russell hits out at Craigavon stance on Eames-Bradley', it "hits out" at the other unionist parties in general.

In no single item does the TUV directly address the real enemies of unionism – nationalists and republicans!



It seems that as the electoral support for unionism declines, the in-fighting amongst the various unionist parties increases. Nationalists can only sit back and enjoy the show.

Facebook

Yesterday Facebook celebrated its fifth birthday. The social networking tool allows people with similar interests to join groups that reflect those interests, and, of course, in many cases these interests are political. There are groups, official or unofficial, that represent all of Northern Ireland's main political parties on Facebook.

The membership of these groups differs widely, though, and they show a picture of the support amongst young people (Facebook's most usual demographic) for the parties that is although far from scientific, interesting nonetheless.

Yesterday, on Facebook's fifth birthday, the membership of the groups was:

• Sinn Féin – 2259
• Ógra Shinn Féin – 419
• Republican Sinn Féin – 373
• Greens in NI – 291
• DUP – 122
• UUP – 92
• SDLP – 76
• SDLP Youth – 65
• Alliance Party – 61
• Queens University DUA – 38
• TUV – 2

It seems that the Young Unionists have no group on Facebook. Although Queens University DUA does not represent all of the DUP Jugend it is a sort of youth wing of the party. The list excludes branch groups, or apparent mirror groups – it shows the membership only of the principal groups for each party.

The overall picture is a stark one. Amongst young people it seems that Sinn Féin is far and away the most popular party. In fact, with 80% of the total, republican parties are the outright winners, with the Greens unsurprisingly following. The entire unionist support (7% of the total) is less than that of the Greens.

Many people are members of several groups, which inflates their apparent support. But this works equally or unionist groups as for nationalist groups.

The low level of support on Facebook for the SDLP, the unionist parties, and especially the TUV, may reflect the age profile of those parties' supporters. Bu today's Facebook supporters are tomorrow's voters, so these parties should start to worry.

A party for (not quite) all of us

How well did David Cameron do his homework before he proposed to his blushing fiancée, the UUP? He announced in his joint statement with Reg Empey in July 2008 that:

"There are too many in Northern Ireland who have been put off playing any role (including voting) in politics by the vicious sectarian divisions of recent years. We believe that the creation of a new political and electoral dynamism will attract a surge of support from people in every part of the community who want to leave the past behind and join together to see a 21st Century Northern Ireland in which every citizen is an equal citizen …"

The implication was that his engagement with the UUP would lead to politics that were less viciously sectarian than in recent years. For many, including some in the UUP, this contained a hope that the UUP would become a broad church, capable of attracting support from outside the 'Ulster Protestant' tribe.

Yet, on a very basic point the engagement has run into problems. The name of the blushing fiancée is part of the basic sectarianism of Northern Irish parties. Its inclusion of the word 'Ulster' reflects the position of the party as part of the Protestant sectarian family. While Ulster is the name of the northernmost province of Ireland and contains nine counties, only six counties make up the entity called (correctly, in constitutional terms) Northern Ireland. The use of the word 'Ulster' to refer to these six counties alone is a uniquely unionist habit, and one that is perceived by most Irish people as insulting and contemptuous. It has absolutely no basis in law.

Over the course of Northern Ireland's history as a separate entity the use of the word 'Ulster' to refer to Northern Ireland was a deliberate act to distance Northern Ireland from the south, and to deny the Irishness of the north. A considerable part of Northern Ireland's population not just recognises but celebrates their identity as Irish people. This part includes many unionists. The recognition that Northern Ireland is a part of Ireland no more denies their rights than the recognition that Scots are from Scotland, or Welsh people from Wales. For many people, nationalist, unionist or neither, the use of the word 'Ulster' by the UUP amongst others, contains an implicit denial of their Irishness, and an attempt to airbrush the word Ireland from Northern Ireland.

The Conservative party seem to have understood this, and apparently want their new arrangement with the UUP to be known by a name that does not deliberately insult that part of the population that is proud of their Irishness.

However, the BBC recently carried out a straw-poll of UUP assembly members which revealed that more than half are opposed to dropping Ulster from the name for electoral purposes. "When asked if they would approve an option that would drop Ulster from the name, 10 MLAs, speaking anonymously, were opposed. In fact, a majority of the 10 were strongly opposed."

So the leopard's spots have not changed. A majority of the UUP MLAs are opposed to removing an entirely unofficial, incorrect and insulting adjective from their party name in order to attract voters who are not currently members of the narrow 'Ulster Protestant' tribe. They would prefer to retain this useless and pointless adjective just in order to annoy anyone who has an Irish identity.

And these are the people who David Cameron thinks are going to help him move towards "a new political and electoral dynamism [which] will attract a surge of support from people in every part of the community"? Their thinking is still stuck in a pre-1972 limbo. They cannot move forwards because their whole attitude is still redolent of the old anti-Irish, anti-diversity, anti-Catholic unionist movement of the past.

This issue will be an important test of the UUP-Tory engagement. If Cameron gives in to the UUP's 'little Ulsterism' the project is doomed.

First thoughts on the European Parliament election

On Thursday 4 June Northern Ireland will vote for its three members of the European Parliament. Although the full list of candidates will not be known for certain until 7 May, the principal parties have already indicated who will stand, and for the minor parties it is frankly of little importance. The election is a game of musical chairs – where previously there were four players and three chairs, now there are five players and still only three chairs.

The players:
DUP – Diane Dodds
Sinn Féin – Bairbre de Brún
UUP/Conservative – James Nicholson
SDLP – Alban Maginness
TUV – Jim Allister

The also-rans:
Alliance Party – have not yet confirmed whether they will stand a candidate
Green Party – Steven Agnew

Issues will, of course, play little or no part in this election. Most voters do not know and do not care where the parties stand on 'Europe', or on the multitude of issues that their MEPs deal with. The election will be a simple headcount both within the two blocks, and between the two blocks.

There are four main areas of interest in the election:
1. the overall unionist-nationalist balance,
2. the break-down of the unionist vote,
3. the break-down of the nationalist vote,
4. the vote for 'other' candidates
These are looked at in more detail below, but first it is useful to put this election in its historical context.

The trend for the unionist vote since the first elections to the European Parliament in 1979 has been downward. From around 59% in 1979 the unionist vote has dropped steadily to the 49% they received in 2004. The evolution of the nationalist vote has been less smooth, but in general it has been upwards, from 31% in 1979 to 42% in 2004. It significantly exceeded its trend in 1999 when a large part of the Alliance Party and 'other' vote went to the SDLP's John Hume in an attempt (which failed) to top the poll. In 1999, while the nationalist vote jumped above its trend, the 'Alliance and other' vote tumbled to 2.3%. In 2004, with Hume gone, the 'Alliance and other' vote recovered, and the nationalist vote reverted to its historical trend.

Much used to be made of Ian Paisley's vote-winning ability, but during his time as an MEP the unionist share of the vote declined constantly, as it did in other elections – local, regional, Westminster. Ironically, the DUP's greatest share of the vote since 1984 came in 2004 when Paisley had retired from Europe and his now nemesis, Jim Allister stood for the DUP, winning 32% of the vote.

There are three seats available, and since the combined votes of the 'Alliance and other' candidates has never exceeded 9.5% – well short of a quota (25%+1) – these votes must be considered to be the core 'neither unionist nor nationalist' vote in Northern Ireland, around 8% on average. Three seats divided amongst four big parties (in the past) must leave one party disappointed. Since the unionist block has always outvoted the nationalist block, and transfers usually stay within blocks, two unionists were elected and only one nationalist. The gap between the two blocks is now much closer, and although unionism will still get more votes than nationalism in 2009, the breakdown of those votes, and the level of transfers will be crucial to deciding whether – in a historical moment – nationalism might snatch a second seat.

The unionist-nationalist balance

The breakdown of the vote in June's European Parliament election between the unionist block and the nationalist block will probably not differ much from the breakdown in other elections. The graph above shows how the two blocks have been approaching parity since the first EP election in 1979, but they have not yet got there.

On the basis of the most recent elections – the Westminster and local elections in 2005, and the Assembly election in 2007 – the relative strengths of the two blocks are approximately: Unionist 50%, Nationalist 43%. The unionist percentage has a downward trend, and the nationalist vote an upward trend. However, the period of time between 2007 and 2009 is too short for any significant change to take place, so it seems inevitable that the unionist block will again outpoll the nationalist block. If there are a high proportion of transfers between the unionist candidates (see below), this should translate again into two unionist seats and one nationalist seat.

The break-down of the unionist vote

One of the most interesting aspects of the election will be the impact of the two major events within unionism since 2004: Jim Allister's breakaway from the DUP and subsequent formation of the Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV), and the common-law marriage between the UUP and the English Tory Party.

Initially derided as a mere flash-in-the-pan by the DUP, or as a temporary usurper of the 'rightful' DUP seat, Jim Allister, by sheer persistence and good timing, has managed to remain a serous threat to the DUP. While few expect him to hold his seat, the DUP are concerned that he will steal their more extremist voters and consign them to an ignominious scramble for the third seat. Allister is playing the same role vis-à-vis the DUP that the DUP itself played vis-à-vis the UUP – that of constantly challenging the other party from a more extreme unionist standpoint. Such a role worked well for the DUP so it is justifiably worried by Allister. The DUP has left such a long string of hostages to fortune in its climb to the top that Allister has a rich seam to mine. And he is mining away, eroding the confidence that extreme unionists used to have in the DUP, and providing them with an alternative. The by-election in Dromore in 2008 showed that while it was still relatively small, the TUV could inflict serious damage on the DUP.

The Paisleyite wing of the DUP is reportedly angry about the manner in which Ian Paisley senior was deposed in 2008, and still hopes to get Ian Paisley junior elected as MP for North Antrim as his father's replacement at the next Westminster election. If the DUP candidate for the EP is identified with the 'modernist' (or non-Paisleyite) wing, some of the Paisleyite voters may vote TUV instead of DUP.

If the TUV manages to steal even 20% of the DUP vote (in Dromore it took 40% of the combined TUV/DUP total; but this was the only election so far in which both parties have competed, so it is not a good basis for predicting the outcome of their next competition), then the DUP might fall below a quota (for the first time ever in a European election). If Sinn Féin poll well, they might top the poll. The DUP may then suffer the double indignity of failing to keep Sinn Féin from topping the poll and having to depend on transfers from minor party candidates, which might not come. When the DUP candidate is eventually elected, he or she may have lost considerable face in the process.

The not-quite marriage between the UUP and the Conservative Party is being talked up incessantly by both sides. However, the 'joint' candidate is none other than the same old UUP candidate whose popularity has been constantly waning for years, and was only barely ahead of the SDLP in 2004. The UUP are desperately hoping for a 'bounce' from their not-quite marriage, but they may be severely disappointed. If a lot of TUV votes do not transfer to the UUP – a party most TUV voters heartily despise – the UUP risks losing its seat to the SDLP. Such an outcome would serious damage the credibility of the UUP-Tory link-up.

A second and less often cited ambition for the UUP/Tory link-up is the hope that it will make James Nicholson more attractive to Alliance Party voters. The eventual winner of the third seat is likely to be decided on the transfers from the 'Alliance and other' voters, and so anything that can make Nicholson less repellent to the centre can only help him. Positioning the UUP candidate (for, despite the hype about the nearly-a-marriage, that is what Nicholson is) as a part of a resurgent soft-right movement may be enough to earn him some extra Alliance transfers, and to keep him ahead of the SDLP's Alban Maginness.

The break-down of the nationalist vote

Another party hoping for a bounce is the SDLP, though their chances are worse than the UUP. Their candidate, the unsuccessful Alban Maginness, lacks any particular appeal – even in his own North Belfast constituency he has been losing ground over the past few years. Although Sinn Féin's Bairbre de Brún is hardly a dynamic MEP she is guaranteed a sufficient vote to get elected – and possibly to top the poll, to the DUP's anger. The SDLP vote should hold steady, though, and if other circumstances went their way, they could just sneak past the UUP for the third seat. Again, much depends upon the transfers of the Alliance Party voters.

The vote for 'other' candidates

In 2004 the assorted 'neither unionist nor nationalist' parties and groups coalesced around a 'unity' candidate – John Gilliland. The novelty of such a candidacy ensured publicity, and some of the more gullible 'centrists' started fantasising about winning a seat. Gilliland got 6.6% of the vote and promptly disappeared back into well-deserved obscurity. But it seems to have led to an expectation of a centrist candidate in 2009, combining the Alliance Party and other disparate groups. So far no such candidate has appeared, and the Alliance Party are keeping their intentions a well guarded secret. The only 'unity' name to have been leaked is Eleanor Gill, whose qualifications for the job are as small as Gilliland's were. She seems to be 'acceptable' to the centre groups because she is (politely speaking) a non-nationalist Catholic.

The Green party have already broken with the 'unity' candidate idea by naming their own candidate, the utterly unknown and unelectable Steven Agnew. He can expect to equal the Greens 2004 total of less than 1%. Hopefully they will not waste too much of the earth's resources on his hopeless campaign.

Historically the 'Alliance and other' vote has tended to be around 8-9% in EP elections, and this time should be no different. The real interest is where their votes transfer to. In 2004 it is likely that more of Gilliland's votes transferred to Nicholson (UUP) than to Morgan (SDLP), but a lot did not transfer at all (it is hard to be sure, as Gilliland's votes were combined with the Greens and Eamon McCann's). In 2009, if the 'Alliance and other' votes go slightly more to the SDLP, if the TUV achieve a reasonable score (say 6% of the total vote), and if the TUV votes fail to fully transfer, this could put the SDLP ahead of the UUP for the final seat.

A possible vote and transfer scenario (not a prediction) might be: