It failed for the reasons explained in my post. Waiting for the public service to downsize naturally and freezing pay-rates causes problems with promotion opportunities and quality of service. Has happened here a couple of times already.
Not in the least surprised that you haven't looked further than a soundbite when thinking about your ideas.
So because something failed under the power swap, it cannot work? Is that what you are saying?
p.s. I know why it failed here, I wanted you to say it though, because as soon as FG or FF are pointed at for failing, you will probably step back from it. 😀
I can see it now under a SF banner.
'Vote for a UI, where Public Servants will lose their job or get a pay cut'
Increase rate of 180 by 5% = 189
5% tax on 189 = 9.45
189 - 9.45 = 179.55
Not much of a difference ofc but still.
So technically... Mathematics is an alien concept to yourself?
Not aware of what SF's proposals on this are. Can you link?
Anyway, how would a banner reading 'Keep Partition Going and People Will Lose Their Jobs as The UK Needs To Cut The Subvention?'
Then tell people what the consequences of a destabilised NI is for the South.
Being pedantic, you are correct, but my meaning was clear from the start - compensate social welfare and minimum wage for the 5% USC charge, all for the demonstrative effect that everybody should pay something.
In the article where PD said we can afford it because of the peer reviewed research he also said he wouldn't reduce PS numbers. He said it was unfair to say there are too many in NI and the number depends on the type of PS service desired.
Fair enough but why Ireland needs more PS workers than other countries needs an explanation. Hardly a good start to the "New Ireland" or much of a change form past mistakes if we bloat it even further to avoid difficult decisions.
If SF do intend to have a bloated PS then the savings will just have to come from elsewhere with Income Tax the obvious choice.
Who knew, blanch is on the same side as the Shinners on this one! 😁
Personally I would like to see the opportunity a UI presents to reform and rationalise both PS's
Fair enough, but economics is as much about the human mindset as it is about monetary figures.
People will complain about having to pay usc while on the dole, even if there financial situation is identical. Very few are willing to pay more tax, regardless of the benefits gained, because most are incapable of seeing beyond their bank account figure even if they make huge savings and benefits elsewhere.
(on a mildly related topic, I highly recommend The David McWilliams Podcast, it is fantastic)
Which is why I contend FF FG SF The Greens Labour etc etc will sell a UI on the benefits when the time comes. Partitionists/anti-UIers will have to run a very negative in comparison campaign.
If they can get anyone of substance to represent them politically that is.
It's what i expected from SF. A bloated PS is typical for the more left leaning ideologies.
Let's face, unification is still the minority position in NI. Wouldn't be the wisest move to tell a significant cohort that unification might lead to some of them losing their jobs.
LOL, I can see the banner from SF.
"Vote for SF, we will ask Westminister to cut off the cash to force a United Ireland"
You are not thinking this through are you.
Westminster are reducing the cash already Mark and signs are their economy will shrink even more, ...are you thinking at all?
so you have no problem then using a poll to push your point and then you want me not to claim I'm speaking for the majority and yet you feel you can speak for the majority.. are you NI as well per chance? Definitely sounds like it with that atitude.
Seems the DUP style people would make the same arguments about Irish independence from the crown.
We make choices based on a vast number of things. We work through any cost once decided. I have never before witnessed government cite cost as a reason for not doing something they wanted to do, but when it's something they've little interest in, suddenly cost is the deciding factor. It's neither credible nor believable.
This is an incredible argument. It's like a couple in a relationship where one wants to run up massive credit card and debt and when the other points out that is unaffordable, they get called out as a spoilsport.
Using references to name calling as partitionists is simply childish. And you do it because you know that your arguments for a UI don't stand up to logical rationale. You refuse to acknowledge that the cost of incorporating NI to the country as a whole will have some detrimental consequences.
All we are getting are Brexit type sunny uplands points.
Not another thread where we get huffs about the use of a perfectly normal descriptive term! 🙄
And again...somebody not reading the thread...I have several times said that I expect a UI to cost money. So what? Any progress we have made as an island has 'cost money'.
There's no doubt that Scottish independence completely destroys the northern unionist point of view, and just shows them up as anti Irish bigots.
When the Scottish don't want to be in the Union, what possible argument do a bunch of people in an island, that the English view as Irish, have to hold on to?
An independent Scotland joining the EU would be ideal for cementing the ties between the Irish, Scottish and their descendent planters
If your in favour of partition,surely partitionist is a reasonable term??
If the cap fits,wear it imo
But I am reading the thread.
You continually want to change the narrative and focus from the costs as if they don't matter. Whimsically waving then away in favour of "opportunities".
Painting other posters as partitionists is childish name-calling just like using terms such as blueshirts and shinnerbots, in an attempt to denigrate anyone who questions how a UI should evolve.
So now you say you expect a UI to cost money, how about telling us how much we'll have to pay, to see if we think it's worth it?
But it is my expressed view that the costs won't matter when FF FG SF LAB GREENS etc propose a UI. The focus will be on the benefits.
If you think a perfectly descriptive word like partitionist is 'name calling, do you think the same of nationalist, unionist, republican loyalist?
Your feelings of guilt are not my concern tbh.
Every country 'costs' money to run. A UI will have initial costs that will dissipate.
If you increase someones income by 5% and stick 5% tax on it...it leaves em worse off....or do liberials just not do math anymore?
5% added to 100 is 105
5% of 105 is 5.25
This is really basic foundation level math
I Live in the Whest but that's irrelevant and speaks volumes of your attitude and approach to this whole issue.
If you had an once of reading comprehension you would see that I clearly state these polls on a UI are biased based on the way the question is asked. So it is easy for either side to chose the poll they want to suit there views. Which is why, in exact contradiction to your farcical accusation above, you don't see me claiming I speak for the majority.
So again... don't claim you represent the majority when you can't back it up with any solid evidence.
What, in your opinion, are these detrimental consequences?
This is the negativity I said partitionists will have to keep reverting to.
Even though I have said several times that I don't for a second think a UI will be a utopia (sunny uplands) and will be subject to the challenges any small country will have, I get accused of ignoring the 'detrimental consequences to talk about sunny uplands'.
Gas craic these lads.
You do sound a bit like Bertie when he was telling us not worry about the economy prior to the crash though.
It will be you lads and lassies running the entirely negative campaign and also being lumped in with and applauded by belligerent Unionism/Loyalism.
The reason why no major political party (if any at all) will touch an anti campaign with a barge pole.
You're on a discussion forum, discussing a potential united ireland, but if you even think about mentioning the costs of that you are a dirty partitionist, a belligerent unionist (whatever that is). The costs will be sorted out magically, through economics idiot (no need to ask how).
Feel free to discuss the benefits though, that's all gravy
Do you really believe the Ango-Irish agreement is comparable to a United Ireland in the minds of Loyalists? Nothing they have endured so far would be remotely as provocative to them as UI.
Again, would RoI’s security forces would be capable of dealing with a Loyalist insurgency? Any sane person knows the answer is no. Thus the new state would depend utterly on PSNI officers staying in their posts and working with the new government - yet another cause for concern. And why do I have to bring this up? The UI boosters should be exploring every possibility at exhaustive length and explaining how exactly they have them covered.
The whole Ui Now show is about pretending there’s no problem and it’s inevitable anyway. There’s no attempt to be serious about the issues.
There were reports that the UDA armed themselves in Tigers Lodge during the bonfire season, to stop emergency personal and the PSNI from going in and dismantelling those mad high bonfires.
Anyone who completely dismisses the possibility of a Loyalist insurgency post a UI is lying to you as they do not know. It has to be considered.
Beware of snake oiled salesmen telling porkies and lies to further a political ideology. They are charlatans and preachers who believe that faith alone will deliver the utopia that is a United Ireland.