Opinion

Fionnuala O Connor: There is merit in admitting when we get it wrong

The drawn-out Brexit process has led to speculation over how a second referendum would turn out 
The drawn-out Brexit process has led to speculation over how a second referendum would turn out  The drawn-out Brexit process has led to speculation over how a second referendum would turn out 

Some subjects are so topical it would be sheer contrarianism to avoid them. (Contrary columnists, now there’s a thought.)

This week’s choice made itself in another way. Exit polls had a high accuracy rate in the Republic, I wrote last week, using that to defend looking at a couple of findings in the RTÉ/TG4/Red C poll of voters in the European election and referendum. A dubious defence, as it turned out.

Although nobody can say that the findings I focused on – support for unification and the Irish language – were misleading estimates. The voters had not been asked to vote on those subjects; they were exit poll frills, extras. It was the reported support for a couple of parties in particular that went askew.

What voters told the exit poll after they exercised their democratic right and actual votes did not match; more had voted for Fianna Fáil, fewer for the Greens. The FF feature has featured previously. Entirely anecdotal evidence blames the sprawl of European constituencies. Some thought questions posed outside polling stations met very different attitudes in Connemara, say, and in Louth.

At least one psephologist says British exit polls are more accurate now than those in the south, since additional money has been spent setting them up. In a reflection for RTE, retired professor Michael Marsh added that: ‘We must have some sympathy for those voters who were willing to stop and answer questions. It was hard enough to search through more than half a metre of ballot paper without having to remember afterwards what you did, who you did it to, and in which election.’

All the same, I planned a note of contrition at the end of today’s piece. Then it occurred to me that getting things wrong, and admitting it, might be worth considering in itself. A rare exercise, some would say, among us views-for-hire merchants. As it is among politicians, the characters we spend most time monitoring.

In the current saga of Brexit, the few who publicly regret their original Leave stance stand out. The most outspoken and best known has been Daily Mail columnist and former Daily Telegraph commentator Peter Oborne, a deep-dyed but also independent-minded Conservative. In April, Oborne suggested a long pause, perhaps a total rethink on Brexit.

It had ‘paralysed the system’, the Leave campaign’s deceit had been exposed, ‘the economic argument destroyed’. The entire business might break up the UK.

No such DUP admission is likely. Much less confession that they voted for Brexit hypocritically trusting that the referendum vote would come out as a No - to keep in step with Brexiteer Conservatism despite knowing that the EU benefited their own patch. Wilful denial still rules okay. Throughout the Tory leadership contest, the party will stay lined up with contestants who insist they can re-negotiate with the EU.

Oh the fibs, misjudgements, mistakes that should be owned up to in politics. But then there is no market for politicians to admit they have been wrong, any more than among paid opinion-eers. To announce on-air, for example, that you have been decidedly wrong is a risky step. Though not as bad as answering ‘I don’t know’, full stop, to ‘where is this going to go?’ That’s understandably unpopular; stops the flow and tends to leave dead air, broadcasting sins. Owning up to mistakes though? That can spark better discussion, as well as being good for the soul.

There is one possible, very recent climb-down in front of our noses. Consider that call by Michelle O’Neill in these very pages for the ‘progressive partnership’ to go back into Stormont together. It does not come entirely out of the blue. Making common cause over Irish and same sex marriage has been a novel tack for a domineering party, who mocked rotten the Stormont opposition of the SDLP and UUs.

Michelle’s call takes openness and inclusiveness a step further. The south’s recent elections gunked Sinn Féin. A disconnect between voters and the message, said Martina Anderson, for whom being on-message is reflex. The same line has emerged from one SF mouth after another.

The northern vote was less of a gunk but Sinn Féin policy wonks must be chewing over the tactic of supporting transfers to Alliance rather than the SDLP. Re-tooling south and north will take a while. Change of tone on Stormont may just be marking time, rather than a political version of contrition. (Though I could be wrong.)