In the aftermath of the referendum there’s an opportunity to look at what motivated the people of Ireland to vote ‘No’ and what the outcome might mean to the political landscape. I’d like to share some thoughts on what shaped such a resounding outcome.
Social Factors
Hosting the referendum on International Women’s day fueled a conservative ‘No’ campaign. Instead of the message being about extending rights to unmarried couples and carers within the family, this referendum was interpreted as deleting mothers from the constitution and voters rallied around protecting the existing meaning of family.
Bambie Thug – Ireland’s reaction to new age pronouns and liberal progress was a factor in this election. Based on social media commentary people were genuinely concerned with the liberalisation movement and it’s personification in this year’s euro song contest entry painted a picture in people’s minds of what the ‘woke’ world might look like some day. This election result was in part a conservative reaction to liberal progress.
Anti-immigration sentiment also resonates online and with groups such as ‘Lawyers for No’ proclaiming there would be an impact on immigration law people became concerned about what they were actually voting for. While the Irish electorate aren’t quite yet declaring we build a wall, the backlash towards immigration is ever present and people’s doubts about our ability to control our borders was brought into question. Of course these doubts manifested in a no vote as the debate on immigration hasn’t really happened in Ireland as of it.
Political Opportunities
Alt right voices might be too radical for the Irish public but with the growth of platforms such as Gript media the conservative voice is getting stronger and reaching more people. The right of centre voter will now be looking to parties like Aontu for representation. Born out of one man’s pro-life campaign, Peadar Tobin and his team have been given an opportunity to focus their energy on maturing the party. It could be the flagship for the conservative voter in the next election but will need to attract more candidates and significant funding, not an unreasonable task if the money rolls in.
As the dust settles there as an opportunity for additional right of centre conservatives to emerge, and make up greater numbers in Dail Earann. While you might say the results don’t necessarily mean a swing in voting behaviour, it certainly puts wind in the sails of the likes of Michael McDowell and as a result you might see the re-emergence of a neo-liberal conservative type party like the Progressive Democrats, which he played such a large role in.
Social Media Winning Elections
Ever since Cambridge Analytica was linked with the Brexit results there has been a great distrust of Social Media platforms and their ability to influence election outcomes.
In the aftermath of the election Michael D Higgins said if you have an unregulated social media you can create destruction without consequence. He considered the misinformation spread on social media as being responsible for the result.
However I don’t believe regulating platforms is the way to go. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and clipping someone’s wings online is a gagging order that hinders free speech and ultimately is an undemocratic approach to communication.
Instead the government needed to illustrate the need for change, meet with carers about individual concerns, explain the impact of the change, share the vision for the future, and above all else they needed to be present. TD’s needed to back this, the government has the resources, parties have grass roots connections. It may be unnecessary to go door to door per sae, but a walk in the community to talk to voters wouldn’t go astray. We know from the results that a large portion of FF/FG/Green supporters did not support the referendums. So the parties didn’t even make a big enough effort to talk to their own team in reality.
Traditional Media Debates
The government also need to consider how they debated the issues on television and radio, because there is a collage of embarrassing clips circulating online. Based on some of the interviews I would go so far as to say some members of government lost televised debates on the issue which ultimately lost the confidence of voters. For instance Michael Martin’s interview with Barrister Maria Steen, where from a more qualified position Steen tells the public that the amendment will open the door for polygamous marriages. The Tainiste responded that polygamy was illegal but he seemed uncertain and confused. When Steen informed that constitutional rights trump legislation Micheal Martin appears to be left without a response, and the government represented by one of its most senior figure heads, was left looking like it didn’t know what it was doing.
At the end of the day this was a well meaning secondary school teacher getting a lesson on the law from a barrister. Although Michael came to the table with years of political experience it’s naive to ask TD’s to debate legal issues with a member of the court, it’s a complete mismatch. While discussions and opinions are welcome legal issues need consideration and professional opinion.
Semantics
The difference in wording between ‘endeavour’ and ‘strive’ somehow became a hot potato with carer and people with disabilities saying the new wording wasn’t strong enough for them. In a nutshell broad terms like this are used because you can’t give one group of people more rights than another, and if stronger language was used it could end up diverting funds from one group in society to another. Personally I found the wording ‘strive’ to be more hopeful than ‘endeavour’ but once the circus was in town it had everyone’s attention.
Roderic O’Gorman Resignation
Roderic O’Gorman gets a lot of flak from alt right online, with an insidious smear campaign being waged against him from the moment he took office. So he certainly should not resign because of some online trolls.
There’s also the danger that if he was forced to resign then future referendums become an opportunity to attack the government, with opposition who care more about point scoring looking for resignations from referendum results. What you end up with a polarised political system that makes non partisan issues difficult to bring to a vote.
However it is worth considering that this referendum had the most one sided result in the history of the state, which can only be considered a failed mission on his behalf.
Michael Martin said there’s no one reason why this ended so badly but that it was the responsibility of the entire government. While it’s admirable to share responsibility it’s concerning that there is a lack of accountability.
If you run with a campaign like this you have to be able to hang your hat on it and face the consequences if you are obliterated. Before you ask for help from your partners in government you should ask does this matter mean enough to you that you’re willing to risk your position as Minister. Can you stand over the wording being used? Is it essential for the betterment of society?
With consequence brings significance to the vote. Instead in the face of this calamity the minister retains his position, and this brings an air of elitism about this government. By the minister remaining on, this government are saying we know better than you and we’ll continue with our work despite what you think.
Ultimately it is very embarrassing for the government and they’ve been accused of being out of touch with the people they represent. We’ve seen in the past that it can be hard to shake this kind of perception and I think we will see this defeat impact opinion polls leading into the local elections.
Can We Have Another Referendum
Despite the fact that many people would have voted ‘No’ out of uncertainty or because they didn’t agree with the wording, we most certainly cannot re-run the referendum.
The referendum was an effort to make constitutional amendments based on principles.
The Irish people having heard the arguments have by a large majority given a preference for the existing language. If it was a closer run race perhaps you could suggest tweaking a phrase but this was a resounding No vote on both counts. Whether that was the right or wrong outcome we must respect the democratic results. The electorate need to have a sense that their voices matter, that turning out to vote matters, and by standing over the result we have a more engaging political system.
On that note the ones that are left laughing on this occasion are the so called 'prophets of doom' who stood in the way of change. Whether the right of centre will have further victories or not will be down to how the government, and even it's opposition react.
Social Factors
Hosting the referendum on International Women’s day fueled a conservative ‘No’ campaign. Instead of the message being about extending rights to unmarried couples and carers within the family, this referendum was interpreted as deleting mothers from the constitution and voters rallied around protecting the existing meaning of family.
Bambie Thug – Ireland’s reaction to new age pronouns and liberal progress was a factor in this election. Based on social media commentary people were genuinely concerned with the liberalisation movement and it’s personification in this year’s euro song contest entry painted a picture in people’s minds of what the ‘woke’ world might look like some day. This election result was in part a conservative reaction to liberal progress.
Anti-immigration sentiment also resonates online and with groups such as ‘Lawyers for No’ proclaiming there would be an impact on immigration law people became concerned about what they were actually voting for. While the Irish electorate aren’t quite yet declaring we build a wall, the backlash towards immigration is ever present and people’s doubts about our ability to control our borders was brought into question. Of course these doubts manifested in a no vote as the debate on immigration hasn’t really happened in Ireland as of it.
Political Opportunities
Alt right voices might be too radical for the Irish public but with the growth of platforms such as Gript media the conservative voice is getting stronger and reaching more people. The right of centre voter will now be looking to parties like Aontu for representation. Born out of one man’s pro-life campaign, Peadar Tobin and his team have been given an opportunity to focus their energy on maturing the party. It could be the flagship for the conservative voter in the next election but will need to attract more candidates and significant funding, not an unreasonable task if the money rolls in.
As the dust settles there as an opportunity for additional right of centre conservatives to emerge, and make up greater numbers in Dail Earann. While you might say the results don’t necessarily mean a swing in voting behaviour, it certainly puts wind in the sails of the likes of Michael McDowell and as a result you might see the re-emergence of a neo-liberal conservative type party like the Progressive Democrats, which he played such a large role in.
Social Media Winning Elections
Ever since Cambridge Analytica was linked with the Brexit results there has been a great distrust of Social Media platforms and their ability to influence election outcomes.
In the aftermath of the election Michael D Higgins said if you have an unregulated social media you can create destruction without consequence. He considered the misinformation spread on social media as being responsible for the result.
However I don’t believe regulating platforms is the way to go. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and clipping someone’s wings online is a gagging order that hinders free speech and ultimately is an undemocratic approach to communication.
Instead the government needed to illustrate the need for change, meet with carers about individual concerns, explain the impact of the change, share the vision for the future, and above all else they needed to be present. TD’s needed to back this, the government has the resources, parties have grass roots connections. It may be unnecessary to go door to door per sae, but a walk in the community to talk to voters wouldn’t go astray. We know from the results that a large portion of FF/FG/Green supporters did not support the referendums. So the parties didn’t even make a big enough effort to talk to their own team in reality.
Traditional Media Debates
The government also need to consider how they debated the issues on television and radio, because there is a collage of embarrassing clips circulating online. Based on some of the interviews I would go so far as to say some members of government lost televised debates on the issue which ultimately lost the confidence of voters. For instance Michael Martin’s interview with Barrister Maria Steen, where from a more qualified position Steen tells the public that the amendment will open the door for polygamous marriages. The Tainiste responded that polygamy was illegal but he seemed uncertain and confused. When Steen informed that constitutional rights trump legislation Micheal Martin appears to be left without a response, and the government represented by one of its most senior figure heads, was left looking like it didn’t know what it was doing.
At the end of the day this was a well meaning secondary school teacher getting a lesson on the law from a barrister. Although Michael came to the table with years of political experience it’s naive to ask TD’s to debate legal issues with a member of the court, it’s a complete mismatch. While discussions and opinions are welcome legal issues need consideration and professional opinion.
Semantics
The difference in wording between ‘endeavour’ and ‘strive’ somehow became a hot potato with carer and people with disabilities saying the new wording wasn’t strong enough for them. In a nutshell broad terms like this are used because you can’t give one group of people more rights than another, and if stronger language was used it could end up diverting funds from one group in society to another. Personally I found the wording ‘strive’ to be more hopeful than ‘endeavour’ but once the circus was in town it had everyone’s attention.
Roderic O’Gorman Resignation
Roderic O’Gorman gets a lot of flak from alt right online, with an insidious smear campaign being waged against him from the moment he took office. So he certainly should not resign because of some online trolls.
There’s also the danger that if he was forced to resign then future referendums become an opportunity to attack the government, with opposition who care more about point scoring looking for resignations from referendum results. What you end up with a polarised political system that makes non partisan issues difficult to bring to a vote.
However it is worth considering that this referendum had the most one sided result in the history of the state, which can only be considered a failed mission on his behalf.
Michael Martin said there’s no one reason why this ended so badly but that it was the responsibility of the entire government. While it’s admirable to share responsibility it’s concerning that there is a lack of accountability.
If you run with a campaign like this you have to be able to hang your hat on it and face the consequences if you are obliterated. Before you ask for help from your partners in government you should ask does this matter mean enough to you that you’re willing to risk your position as Minister. Can you stand over the wording being used? Is it essential for the betterment of society?
With consequence brings significance to the vote. Instead in the face of this calamity the minister retains his position, and this brings an air of elitism about this government. By the minister remaining on, this government are saying we know better than you and we’ll continue with our work despite what you think.
Ultimately it is very embarrassing for the government and they’ve been accused of being out of touch with the people they represent. We’ve seen in the past that it can be hard to shake this kind of perception and I think we will see this defeat impact opinion polls leading into the local elections.
Can We Have Another Referendum
Despite the fact that many people would have voted ‘No’ out of uncertainty or because they didn’t agree with the wording, we most certainly cannot re-run the referendum.
The referendum was an effort to make constitutional amendments based on principles.
The Irish people having heard the arguments have by a large majority given a preference for the existing language. If it was a closer run race perhaps you could suggest tweaking a phrase but this was a resounding No vote on both counts. Whether that was the right or wrong outcome we must respect the democratic results. The electorate need to have a sense that their voices matter, that turning out to vote matters, and by standing over the result we have a more engaging political system.
On that note the ones that are left laughing on this occasion are the so called 'prophets of doom' who stood in the way of change. Whether the right of centre will have further victories or not will be down to how the government, and even it's opposition react.
RSS Feed
