Arlene Foster and the RHI scandal

FrancieBrady

Jayop wrote: »

Or will have cost a fortune and it will have been paid for by someone shady but won't have had to be declared by the DUP because of the rules in NI that are different from the UK.

Amazes me always that they constantly declare their overwhelming britishness but won't to have different laws to them when it suits them.

I think their religious beliefs take precedence over their British beliefs. Sadly.

The British began to realise that from the mid 80's on and the war was lost imo.
British resistance to a deal with the IRA began to diminish when they realised they didn't care about or understand these people.

road_high

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British began to realise that from the mid 80's on and the war was lost imo.
British resistance to a deal with the IRA began to diminish when they realised they didn't care about or understand these people.

I think the English have a better relationship and easier ties with the Irish (North and especially South) than so called "Unionists" have with them.
They're on a completely different page in terms of societal freedoms and equality, immigration, trade etc etc.
They seem to be in love still with the Union of 100 years ago. Not the country the UK is now.

Jayop

road_high wrote: »

I think the English have a better relationship and easier ties with the Irish (North and especially South) than so called "Unionists" have with them.
They're on a completely different page in terms of societal freedoms and equality, immigration, trade etc etc.
They seem to be in love still with the Union of 100 years ago. Not the country the UK is now.

I'd say that your right there.

munsterlegend

road_high wrote: »

I think the English have a better relationship and easier ties with the Irish (North and especially South) than so called "Unionists" have with them.
They're on a completely different page in terms of societal freedoms and equality, immigration, trade etc etc.
They seem to be in love still with the Union of 100 years ago. Not the country the UK is now.

Totally agree..people like gregory Campbell and Nigel Dodds belong in the dinosaur age

FrancieBrady

munsterlegend wrote: »

Totally agree..people like gregory Campbell and Nigel Dodds belong in the dinosaur age

Have a listen to this. Astonishing stuff.

https://audioboom.com/posts/5503818-edwin-poots-says-irish-language-act-was-not-signed-up-to-by-dup-as-part-of-st-andrew-s-agreement-bbcnolan

Jayop

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have a listen to this. Astonishing stuff.

https://audioboom.com/posts/5503818-edwin-poots-says-irish-language-act-was-not-signed-up-to-by-dup-as-part-of-st-andrew-s-agreement-bbcnolan

I made a thread just about that.

FrancieBrady

Jayop wrote: »

I made a thread just about that.

Where?

Jayop

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057694472/1/#post102309076

Need to add Dodds announcement that this election isn't about RHI but is about soldiers being asked to account for their actions.

FrancieBrady

Jayop wrote: »

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057694472/1/#post102309076

Need to add Dodds announcement that this election isn't about RHI but is about soldiers being asked to account for their actions.

I'm not allowed go to that part of the forest.

Jayop

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm not allowed go to that part of the forest.

Ah didn't know. Carry on so. Its not like anyone is replying in there.

FrancieBrady

McGuinness getting a fairly glowing appraisal on his retirement. Not what the DUP want in the centre of their storm.

Inquitus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

McGuinness getting a fairly glowing appraisal on his retirement. Not what the DUP want in the centre of their storm.

Agreed, perfect timing, love him or hate him he has done a lot for the North and for Peace, in contrast to Arelene who's given half a billion pounds away in an awful scam of a Initiative.....compare and contrast.

FrancieBrady

Inquitus wrote: »

Agreed, perfect timing, love him or hate him he has done a lot for the North and for Peace, in contrast to Arelene who's given half a billion pounds away in an awful scam of a Initiative.....compare and contrast.

While the money is important, her failure as any kind of leader is the way she stirred the bigoted rabble pot on several occaissons in her short year as leader.

Jayop

FrancieBrady wrote: »

While the money is important, her failure as any kind of leader is the way she stirred the bigoted rabble pot on several occaissons in her short year as leader.

Agreed. Her lack of any kind of ability to reach across the aisle is a bigger failure than the epic RHI scandal.

FrancieBrady

Says a lot about the DUP that the press are in a tizzy because one of their members said something reasonable about a republican leader.

FrancieBrady

Unionism begins to devour itself. I can see Republican/Nationalist parties just sitting back and letting them do the work themselves. Could be a very nasty in-fighting campaign.

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/dup-spad-ripped-off-rhi-scheme-for-his-home-1-7787584

A Little Pony

Anatom wrote: »

I'm not a massive fan of his, but Fintan O'Toole makes an interesting point in today's edition of The Irish Times about a potential alliance between the UUP, SDLP and the Alliance on the topic of Brexit, and them potentially making it a big election issue.

I'm not sure whether this alliance could happen, but there's a chance it could.  The problem might be SF taking the lead on the topic as well and stealing their thunder.  If nothing else though, it could very easily sideline the DUP...

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-dup-must-be-punished-for-its-brexit-folly-1.2938690

Fintan O’Toole: DUP must be punished for its Brexit folly

A funny thing happened on the way to the Brexit vote last June and it has important resonances for the Northern Ireland elections.

Two days before the referendum, more than a million people commuting to and around London got their free copy of the Metro newspaper.  But it came wrapped in a four-page glossy ad supplement. The front page carried three slogans: “Vote to leave the EU on Thursday”, “We can be even stronger if we take back control” and (for the slow learners) “Vote to leave”.

The rest of the content was the usual pro-Brexit propaganda, including the false claim that Turkey and Albania were about to join the EU and the notorious lie that £350 million a week was being paid by the UK to Brussels. (This already-discredited claim was cunningly adjusted to “the European Union bills us £50 million every single day”.)

But the funny thing is that the wraparound was credited to an entity that must have seemed mysterious to most of those bleary London commuters: DUP. Was that, some might have wondered, short for Don’t Understand Politics?

The Metro does not circulate in Northern Ireland. The glossy supplement was for voters in the London area only.

It was undoubtedly very expensive – newspapers, even freesheets, don’t like to hide themselves inside someone else’s ad so they charge a very heavy price for this kind of thing.

It is safe to assume that this was the most expensive single piece of propaganda ever issued by an Irish political party.

Yet we have no idea who paid for it: Northern Ireland, charmingly, is exempt from British laws on the disclosure of political donations.

At the time, the Democratic Unionist Party’s Mervyn Storey would say only that whatever the cost, it was a “price worth paying” to establish the DUP as a key player in the Brexit campaign, not in Northern Ireland but in the UK as a whole.

Funding
There is a lot we don’t know about the funding of the DUP’s pro-Brexit campaign: the right-wing English businessman Aaron Banks claims the DUP asked him for £30,000 a week to join his Leave.eu campaign but the DUP vehemently denies this.

What is absolutely clear, however, is that the DUP willingly allowed itself to be sucked in to the murkier side of the Brexit movement.

It wanted to express an ultra-British identity (which it is fully entitled to do) but it did so through opaque funding and fake claims. And, more importantly, it did so in a way that was breathtakingly irresponsible.

Arlene Foster and her colleagues knew with complete certainty that a large majority of voters in Northern Ireland wished to stay in the EU.

Foster as First Minister had a duty to represent, not the DUP, but Northern Ireland. She and her colleagues entirely abandoned that duty.

They decided it was far more important for the DUP to cosy up to English nationalism than it was to set out a coherent analysis of the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.  

And this is why Foster should not be First Minister and why the DUP should be turfed out of office.

Without diminishing the importance of the “cash for ash” scandal, the cash for politically trashing Northern Ireland’s vital interests is a much bigger question.

Sinn Féin has its own agenda in its war with the DUP, but there is a much bigger agenda: the democratic wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland and the DUP’s open determination to thwart those desires.

The assembly elections may be unwanted but they do provide a fortuitous opportunity to make a clear statement: Northern Ireland wishes to remain in the EU and it is not, as the DUP keep insisting, just another part of the UK.

Non-sectarian alliance
But to make that statement, something big has to happen. For the first time, there has to be a non-sectarian alliance.

The three main Opposition parties, the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP and Alliance agree on many things, and by far the most important of them is Brexit. They each opposed it.

And they have a very strong case to make: Northern Ireland needs a government that is committed solely to getting the best deal for its own people.

A DUP-led government is entirely unable to offer that commitment because the DUP is deeply compromised on the whole question.  It chose to be part of the heedless and headless adventurism that has created this crisis for Northern Ireland. Even if it wished to do so, it cannot disentangle itself from the Brexiteers in London.

And Northern Ireland patently needs a government that is willing and able to fight its own corner.

So make Brexit the issue. The UUP, SDLP and Alliance have a real proposition to put to voters.

It is negative: the DUP which blithely led us into this crisis cannot get us out of it.

And it is positive: we can offer an alternative government that is not compromised on the biggest question facing us, one that will shape all our futures.

It offers a way beyond the sectarian head-count. And it could do what elections, at their most basic, must do – punish arrogant and incompetent governments.

A very apt name for Fintan. The UUP is going to take another whooping in this election by the mighty DUP.

Anatom

We'll see. Paisley Jnr's remarks this week have been good to see.

FrancieBrady

Anatom wrote: »

We'll see. Paisley Jnr's remarks this week have been good to see.

Jun never got over them pushing Ian aside for political expediency. I wouldn't be too hopeful that it means a lot to the current crop

Jayop

https://www.facebook.com/Tel.irwin/posts/1638066886210603

So tonight I decided to do some research myself into the R.H.I scheme and have been blown away with what I have discovered in less than two hours by simply using my phone and google. I believe I have discovered a link between Arlene Foster and the R.H.I scheme as far back as June 2008, and to be precise the 9th of June 2008 - the very day she took up her roll as Minister of Enterprise, Trade & Investment and on the same day a Mr Stephen Kingon was appointed director of Balcas Timber Limited, the company which would go on to become the largest wood pellet fuel manufacturer in Great Britain and Ireland, and has pioneered biomass renewable energy in the British Isles with an annual turnover of circa £100 Million.
Coincidence??? I'll let you decide for yourself, here is the timeline of events.
1st of January 2005 -
DUP appoint Mr Stephen Kingon as chairperson of Invest N.I (3 year post)
9th of June 2008 -
Arlene Foster is appointed as Minister of Enterprise, Trade & Investment - Mr Stephen Kingon is also appointed chairman of Balcas Timber Limited on the same day.
29 December 2008 -
Enterprise Minister Arlene Foster has announced the re-appointment of Invest N.I Chairman, Stephen Kingon.
2nd September 2009 -
It is discovered that Invest N.I have awarded
Balcas Timber Limited a grant of £113,000 and the chairman of Invest N.I & Balcas Timber Limited is the same person Mr Stephen Kingon, all this is overseen by the Enterprise, trade and investment department ministered by Arlene Forster, and what does he get for awarding his own company a huge grant from Invest N.I. well one would think the sack, no he stays on until the start on January 2011.
1st of January 2011 -
Mr Stephen kingdon completes 6 years in his post 3 of those years he was also chairperson of Balcas Timber Limited.
November 2012 -
Enterprise Minister introduces the R.H.I which leads to Balcas Timber Limited to become the largest wood pellet fuel manufacturer in Great Britain and Ireland, and earn Mr Stephen Kingon and his company over a £100 million annually and also cost the N.I taxpayer at least over £600 million which will be paid to god knows how many friends & family connected to the DUP.

The plot thickens....

flutered

Jayop wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/Tel.irwin/posts/1638066886210603



The plot thickens....

it couldent be any thicker

FrancieBrady

flutered wrote: »

it couldent be any thicker

Oh it is, if what I am hearing locally, is correct. The connections are very close indeed.

Seth Brundle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Oh it is, if what I am hearing locally, is correct. The connections are very close indeed.

Are you hearing that Foster and Kingon may be on more that speaking terms with each other?

FrancieBrady

kbannon wrote: »

Are you hearing that Foster and Kingon may be on more that speaking terms with each other?

Not entering it into the public realm, just saying there is more.

R P McMurphy

Looks like some of the people availing of the grant may have not even been using the wood pellets themselves but taking the grant and then selling on the pellets across the border. Nice little earner for doing practically nothing

Mr.Nice Guy

Anyone think Mike Nesbitt made a costly error when he told the BBC's Sunday Politics show that he would recommend giving some preferences to the SDLP? While I think it's commendable that he's trying to move politics away from the usual orange vs green stuff, he gave the DUP an opportunity to shift the discussion away from the RHI sceme and on to the constitutional question. Even some members of the UUP like Danny Kennedy have said they will give votes to the DUP, but not nationalists.

I listened to the BBC's Talkback show yesterday and there were a number of unionists who phoned in and said they were going to switch from voting DUP to UUP over the RHI scandal, but since Nesbitt's remarks are now going to switch back to DUP.

Has he inadvertently given the DUP a reprieve?

Jayop

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Anyone think Mike Nesbitt made a costly error when he told the BBC's Sunday Politics show that he would recommend giving some preferences to the SDLP? While I think it's commendable that he's trying to move politics away from the usual orange vs green stuff, he gave the DUP an opportunity to shift the discussion away from the RHI sceme and on to the constitutional question. Even some members of the UUP like Danny Kennedy have said they will give votes to the DUP, but not nationalists.

I listened to the BBC's Talkback show yesterday and there were a number of unionists who phoned in and said they were going to switch from voting DUP to UUP over the RHI scandal, but since Nesbitt's remarks are now going to switch back to DUP.

Has he inadvertently given the DUP a reprieve?

I wanted to start a thread on this and delve a little more into it but I knew it would go the same was as all NI threads so didn't bother.

No, I don't think him doing what he did was a problem. I do think him doing that without clearing it with his colleagues was very naive. I also think the SDLP leader Eastwood sold him down the river when he wouldn't return the favour.

For the thread I was thinking about it was whether the SDLP and the UUP could amalgamate. It's pretty clear to me that very few of the people who vote for either party now given they have no real power have any interest in the hardcore green and orange debate. They are both parties for the middleground nationalists and Unionists. I also think that SF and the DUP only get the amount of votes they do because a lot of people vote for them over the other option because the know they will be in power.

They could create a new party, have candidates able to run on a Unionist or Nationalist platform as they wish, have a set of strict party guidelines for the real big issues, ut given both were the architects of the GFA I think that would already be in place. Issues of conscience could be a free vote. They could agree not to use the Veto for issues that it wasn't designed for like the DUP have done on numerous occasions.

The numbers would be interesting.

Just assuming that none of either party quit because of such a move then they would have 28 MLA's (16 UUP, 12 SDLP).

That would immediately put them joint with SF and just behind the DUP. I feel the DUP will lose ground in this election, and if this party existed then I honestly feel that they would keep the majority of their current electorate, they would eat significantly into the Alliances votes, I think a lot of those who voted independent center ground would get the vote, and some of the smaller parties like green, Cista, PBP etc.

I also strongly feel that they would take a lot of votes from SF. I know quite a few nationalists who only vote for SF because they know they'll be bigger than the SDLP so you may as well make them as strong as possible. I don't know if the same sentiment is there with some DUP voters.


Say they kept their own votes, added half the Alliance votes and 10% of SF's then they would be the biggest party in the north with 210k first preferences.

The biggest stumbling block would probably be the manifesto, but given they are the most closely aligned of the big parties, both fairly centrist it could be achieved.

blanch152

Jayop wrote: »

I wanted to start a thread on this and delve a little more into it but I knew it would go the same was as all NI threads so didn't bother.

No, I don't think him doing what he did was a problem. I do think him doing that without clearing it with his colleagues was very naive. I also think the SDLP leader Eastwood sold him down the river when he wouldn't return the favour.

For the thread I was thinking about it was whether the SDLP and the UUP could amalgamate. It's pretty clear to me that very few of the people who vote for either party now given they have no real power have any interest in the hardcore green and orange debate. They are both parties for the middleground nationalists and Unionists. I also think that SF and the DUP only get the amount of votes they do because a lot of people vote for them over the other option because the know they will be in power.

They could create a new party, have candidates able to run on a Unionist or Nationalist platform as they wish, have a set of strict party guidelines for the real big issues, ut given both were the architects of the GFA I think that would already be in place. Issues of conscience could be a free vote. They could agree not to use the Veto for issues that it wasn't designed for like the DUP have done on numerous occasions.

The numbers would be interesting.

Just assuming that none of either party quit because of such a move then they would have 28 MLA's (16 UUP, 12 SDLP).

That would immediately put them joint with SF and just behind the DUP. I feel the DUP will lose ground in this election, and if this party existed then I honestly feel that they would keep the majority of their current electorate, they would eat significantly into the Alliances votes, I think a lot of those who voted independent center ground would get the vote, and some of the smaller parties like green, Cista, PBP etc.

I also strongly feel that they would take a lot of votes from SF. I know quite a few nationalists who only vote for SF because they know they'll be bigger than the SDLP so you may as well make them as strong as possible. I don't know if the same sentiment is there with some DUP voters.


Say they kept their own votes, added half the Alliance votes and 10% of SF's then they would be the biggest party in the north with 210k first preferences.

The biggest stumbling block would probably be the manifesto, but given they are the most closely aligned of the big parties, both fairly centrist it could be achieved.

The main stumbling block in any manifesto would be the conditions under which a referendum on unity could be held.

Would a statement such as that they would support a referendum if unity got 60% in the polls (thereby it being less divisive) be enough for a nationalist to vote for it and enough to reassure Unionists about the future of the Union?

Get that issue right and the rest is only economics and social welfare etc.

Jayop

blanch152 wrote: »

The main stumbling block in any manifesto would be the conditions under which a referendum on unity could be held.

Would a statement such as that they would support a referendum if unity got 60% in the polls (thereby it being less divisive) be enough for a nationalist to vote for it and enough to reassure Unionists about the future of the Union?

Get that issue right and the rest is only economics and social welfare etc.

Unionists are funny, especially those who post on here. In one post they tell you that nationalists don't want a UI and so many of them now identify as British, on the other hand they're terrified of a border poll. Why would you be so afraid of something you seem so utterly convinced would fail?? It's strange in the extreme.

I think 60% would be far too big a number. I honestly don't see why 51% in a series of polls shouldn't trigger a vote.

munsterlegend

Jayop wrote: »

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Anyone think Mike Nesbitt made a costly error when he told the BBC's Sunday Politics show that he would recommend giving some preferences to the SDLP? While I think it's commendable that he's trying to move politics away from the usual orange vs green stuff, he gave the DUP an opportunity to shift the discussion away from the RHI sceme and on to the constitutional question. Even some members of the UUP like Danny Kennedy have said they will give votes to the DUP, but not nationalists.

I listened to the BBC's Talkback show yesterday and there were a number of unionists who phoned in and said they were going to switch from voting DUP to UUP over the RHI scandal, but since Nesbitt's remarks are now going to switch back to DUP.

Has he inadvertently given the DUP a reprieve?

I wanted to start a thread on this and delve a little more into it but I knew it would go the same was as all NI threads so didn't bother.

No, I don't think him doing what he did was a problem. I do think him doing that without clearing it with his colleagues was very naive. I also think the SDLP leader Eastwood sold him down the river when he wouldn't return the favour.

For the thread I was thinking about it was whether the SDLP and the UUP could amalgamate. It's pretty clear to me that very few of the people who vote for either party now given they have no real power have any interest in the hardcore green and orange debate. They are both parties for the middleground nationalists and Unionists. I also think that SF and the DUP only get the amount of votes they do because a lot of people vote for them over the other option because the know they will be in power.

They could create a new party, have candidates able to run on a Unionist or Nationalist platform as they wish, have a set of strict party guidelines for the real big issues, ut given both were the architects of the GFA I think that would already be in place. Issues of conscience could be a free vote. They could agree not to use the Veto for issues that it wasn't designed for like the DUP have done on numerous occasions.

The numbers would be interesting.

Just assuming that none of either party quit because of such a move then they would have 28 MLA's (16 UUP, 12 SDLP).

That would immediately put them joint with SF and just behind the DUP. I feel the DUP will lose ground in this election, and if this party existed then I honestly feel that they would keep the majority of their current electorate, they would eat significantly into the Alliances votes, I think a lot of those who voted independent center ground would get the vote, and some of the smaller parties like green, Cista, PBP etc.

I also strongly feel that they would take a lot of votes from SF. I know quite a few nationalists who only vote for SF because they know they'll be bigger than the SDLP so you may as well make them as strong as possible. I don't know if the same sentiment is there with some DUP voters.


Say they kept their own votes, added half the Alliance votes and 10% of SF's then they would be the biggest party in the north with 210k first preferences.

The biggest stumbling block would probably be the manifesto, but given they are the most closely aligned of the big parties, both fairly centrist it could be achieved.

While both the UUP and SDLP are not as hardcore on the constitutional issue, I would foresee any such merger as premature. It is still a major dividing line and the alliance party are proof as to how difficulty it is to prosper in the neutral position. People would continue to vote in fear for the DUP/SF and maybe even in greater numbers. Unionism is worried given the tories care about England and no where else. Maybe Scotland to some extent as it has some value.