Arlene Foster and the RHI scandal

RicePat · 08-03-2017 04:47PM

blanch152 wrote: »

A little google search just for you. The Knights count Sean Crowe and Des Mackin among their friends.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/

This hilarious economic analysis of the report - it only works if you impose Tory Austerity - is good too.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2016/03/26/the-reports-canadian-authors-made-their-numbers-add-up-by-using-a-tory-island-model-of-small-government-low-taxes-free-markets-and-no-debt/

Brilliant! You are attempting to discredit the report by using the BLOGS of one guy with a huge Shinner chip on his shoulder. Here's the list of his latest blog posts https://sluggerotoole.com/author/petebaker/
he has an awful dose of Arleneitis, every other word is Sinn Fein or Gerry Adams.

Nah, think I'll stick with the researched findings of the experts rather than the rantings of one bitter blogger if you dont mind

blanch152 · 08-03-2017 04:52PM

RicePat wrote: »

Brilliant! You are attempting to discredit the report by using the BLOGS of one guy with a huge Shinner chip on his shoulder. Here's the list of his latest blog posts https://sluggerotoole.com/author/petebaker/
he has an awful dose of Arleneitis, every other word is Sinn Fein or Gerry Adams.

Nah, think I'll stick with the researched findings of the experts rather than the rantings of one bitter blogger if you dont mind

Oh dear, did you even read his posts where he dismantled the links between the authors and SF, all backed up with sources.

Did you even read the report, where the authors several times admit themselves that they made up the data?

RicePat · 08-03-2017 05:05PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh dear, did you even read his posts where he dismantled the links between the authors and SF, all backed up with sources.

I did, and hilariously what it amounts to is that MEP Matt Carthy welcomed the report :eek: An Phoblacht printed an article on the report :eek: Gerry Adams was somewhere in America in or around the time they were founded maybe

(assuming such an organisation can be set up overnight :rolleyes: ) and that they have met with members of SF. IMAGINE! An Irish American welfare group meeting with the only significant anti austerity party in Ireland :eek:

To quote Michelle O'Neill today "waffle, waffle and more waffle" from, as has already been demonstrated, a vehement anti-shinner blogger

Did you even read the report, where the authors several times admit themselves that they made up the data?

No, in places where data was unavailable they made the best possible estimations they could (as any study on anything would) and outlined this themselves in the report exactly when it was occurring. Nobody who read the report could be surprised by or suspicious of this, they are very open about it.

More waffle and no actual rejection of the findings or questions over the independence of the people who actually carried out the report.

Poor effort

FrancieBrady · 08-03-2017 05:18PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh dear, did you even read his posts where he dismantled the links between the authors and SF, all backed up with sources.

Did you even read the report, where the authors several times admit themselves that they made up the data?

Did you even read Slugger? Every criticism he has of the report seems to be dealt with by the report itself.
i.e the report itself says it is an 'economic study' not a 'political' one so it's not trying to fool anyone there.

Slugger goes on the attack/ridicule again BUT has to admit 'To be fair to the authors of the study they appear to be aware of the limitations of their approach.'

Slugger then has to accept what the report authors know and what we all know or SHOULD know, economic prediction(s) in particular, is an art, not a science.
They are also matters of OPINION as can be seen any night of the week on political discussions on telly and when stockbrokers jump out of windows having made the wrong punt and lost the family fortune.
I don't see any attempt either, to obscure who paid for or commissioned the study, so no problems there either.

So after all that and recognising that these reports will always be open to one sided criticism we are still waiting for the reports you have seen that detail why a UI is economically a bad idea?

Please post links to your studies for the purposes of comparison.

Jayop · 08-03-2017 06:17PM

blanch152 wrote: »

On the one hand, we have the opinion poll carried out by a reputable polling company that showed support for a united Ireland in the short-term at a historic high of 13%.

On the other hand, we have internet posters on here claiming that Brexit and the recent election mean a united Ireland could be happening within the next decade.

As significant as Brexit is, it won't have that kind of effect. If it is to change opinion that seismically in even a small part of the UK such as Northern Ireland, then it is more likely that there will be a public push for a referendum on the terms of Brexit which may see the UK stay in.

Where do you get your numbers from?

The last poll conducted by the BBC was at 22% to join the republic.

If you remove the don't knows and the won't votes then the figure of actual yes vs no voters is 26%.

Consider further that the vast majority of "don't know" responses came from Catholics (17% vs 5%) then the number rises again.

Going even further again, of the Catholics who voted yes or no, 53% said they would vote yes. Of the 13% that said they didn't know I'd have a strong suspicion that they'd vote yes.

These figures would of course have to slide significantly and I would have little faith overall in that survey. How many people did they interview? Where were they from? Did they conduct the interview along the border counties?

Also, from 2013 to 2016 the number of people who don't know rose by 8%. The number who would vote to stay in the UK dropped by 2%. The number of people who would vote yes rose by 5%.

If that figure keeps on rising like it has been doing then it'll get there eventually.

But to my main point, you pulled the 13% figure from your arse.

blanch152 · 08-03-2017 06:32PM

Jayop wrote: »

Where do you get your numbers from?

The last poll conducted by the BBC was at 22% to join the republic.

If you remove the don't knows and the won't votes then the figure of actual yes vs no voters is 26%.

Consider further that the vast majority of "don't know" responses came from Catholics (17% vs 5%) then the number rises again.

Going even further again, of the Catholics who voted yes or no, 53% said they would vote yes. Of the 13% that said they didn't know I'd have a strong suspicion that they'd vote yes.

These figures would of course have to slide significantly and I would have little faith overall in that survey. How many people did they interview? Where were they from? Did they conduct the interview along the border counties?

Also, from 2013 to 2016 the number of people who don't know rose by 8%. The number who would vote to stay in the UK dropped by 2%. The number of people who would vote yes rose by 5%.

If that figure keeps on rising like it has been doing then it'll get there eventually.

But to my main point, you pulled the 13% figure from your arse.

Before you make definitive statements like that, you might want to check back just a few posts in case you find something.......

blanch152 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2015/1104/739633-prime-time-cross-border-poll-test-page/

This is the most comprehensive poll in recent years, albeit it took place before Brexit.

Only 13% in Northern Ireland favoured a United Ireland in the short/medium term. While this will have increased following Brexit, it is clear that not even all SF supporters favour a united Ireland. The 24% that favour Direct Rule can be taken as supporting the Union. However, what isn't known is what proportion of those who favour devolution, favour Northern Irish independence rather than the Union.

From a Southern perspective, the most interesting conclusion was that support for a united Ireland was low in the short/medium term - 36%, and even though there was 66% support for it in one's lifetime, this dropped dramatically to 31% if it meant more tax (much closer to the short-term view).

Later this spring (May) might be a good time for a similar in-depth survey to see have attitudes changed since Brexit.

blanch152 · 08-03-2017 06:33PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did you even read Slugger? Every criticism he has of the report seems to be dealt with by the report itself.
i.e the report itself says it is an 'economic study' not a 'political' one so it's not trying to fool anyone there.

Slugger goes on the attack/ridicule again BUT has to admit 'To be fair to the authors of the study they appear to be aware of the limitations of their approach.'

Slugger then has to accept what the report authors know and what we all know or SHOULD know, economic prediction(s) in particular, is an art, not a science.
They are also matters of OPINION as can be seen any night of the week on political discussions on telly and when stockbrokers jump out of windows having made the wrong punt and lost the family fortune.
I don't see any attempt either, to obscure who paid for or commissioned the study, so no problems there either.

So after all that and recognising that these reports will always be open to one sided criticism we are still waiting for the reports you have seen that detail why a UI is economically a bad idea?

Please post links to your studies for the purposes of comparison.

Well, there we go, you admit that there are limitations to their approach, so does Slugger, so do I, so do the other links provided by Slugger, let's all agree that the report is limited and doesn't tell us very much and could well be completely wrong.

FrancieBrady · 08-03-2017 06:37PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, there we go, you admit that there are limitations to their approach, so does Slugger, so do I, so do the other links provided by Slugger, let's all agree that the report is limited and doesn't tell us very much and could well be completely wrong.

It's a 'study' 'projection' and has all the caveats that go with that. Not one of it's authors has claimed it is how things will go.

Yet again and again we get people queuing up here to say 'A UI will be economically disastrous' and it is based on this mythical figure of 9 billion.

So can you give us the break down of where that 9 billion is going and indeed where it is coming from.
And while you are at it could you PLEASE link to the studies you are using?

blanch152 · 08-03-2017 07:32PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's a 'study' 'projection' and has all the caveats that go with that. Not one of it's authors has claimed it is how things will go.

Yet again and again we get people queuing up here to say 'A UI will be economically disastrous' and it is based on this mythical figure of 9 billion.

So can you give us the break down of where that 9 billion is going and indeed where it is coming from.
And while you are at it could you PLEASE link to the studies you are using?

Well, if I was doing a study, I wouldn't ignore it, wave a magic wand and say it will be replaced by a subsidy from the EU.

FrancieBrady · 08-03-2017 07:35PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, if I was doing a study, I wouldn't ignore it, wave a magic wand and say it will be replaced by a subsidy from the EU.

So no study on your side of the debate - that says a lot to be honest. There seems to be a tremendous fear of looking at this option for the island in a serious way among partitionists and unionists.
What makes you think that the EU wouldn't be involved in a UI?
They are in projects aimed at consolidating the GFA.

Jayop · 08-03-2017 07:36PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Before you make definitive statements like that, you might want to check back just a few posts in case you find something.......

You said the most comprehensive poll in recent times. So you're just ignoring the one done last year by the BBC and RTE because the numbers don't suit you?

Like I said, from your rse.

blanch152 · 08-03-2017 07:54PM

Jayop wrote: »

You said the most comprehensive poll in recent times. So you're just ignoring the one done last year by the BBC and RTE because the numbers don't suit you?

Like I said, from your rse.

That is the one I linked to!!!! November 2015, just 16 months ago, carried out by RTE and BBC.

Is there another more recent joint poll?

Consonata · 08-03-2017 08:44PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Before you make definitive statements like that, you might want to check back just a few posts in case you find something.......

The only useful figure in that one is "Do you want to see a United Ireland in your lifetime".

Which is:
Yes: 30%
No: 43%
Don't Know: 27%

Asking if you want a United Ireland now when there hasn't been any real substantial campaign for one in recent years, will cut into the 30% figure greatly since a lot of people would want to go for the status quo rather than risk it in an economically turbulent time.

That may change when there is actual demonstrable positives for a United Ireland, getting out of the blow-back of Brexit being a major one.
People seem to think that since there isn't a lot of positivity for a United Ireland in the north at the moment, that that won't change over time.

____________________________________________________________________________

Remember there is a key difference between:

"Do you support a United Ireland?"

and

"Will you vote yes in the unification referendum on x date?"

Jayop · 08-03-2017 09:35PM

blanch152 wrote: »

That is the one I linked to!!!! November 2015, just 16 months ago, carried out by RTE and BBC.

Is there another more recent joint poll?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-37309706

6 months ago

blanch152 · 08-03-2017 11:05PM

Jayop wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-37309706

6 months ago

Nope, that's not the one you referenced:

Jayop wrote: »

You said the most comprehensive poll in recent times. So you're just ignoring the one done last year by the BBC and RTE because the numbers don't suit you?

Like I said, from your rse.

You make a point of "calling me out" on what you believe are my lies, and are extremely precise in what you challenge. If I had said RTE were part of the poll, you would slaughter me on it. I will let it go because I am not that type, but you might want to lay off a bit. If you define comprehensive as being north and south, my point stands.

Consonata · 08-03-2017 11:12PM

The real figure on UI probably hovers around the 27% to 30% in the North at the moment, with a lot of don't knows. Who knows, that might change over time.

Jayop · 08-03-2017 11:13PM

Ah Ffs now you're really getting into petty pedantic point scoring now. You were saying that number was from the last major poll, I said it wasn't. Whether it was Rte or BBC (both strongly partitionist) is irrelevant.

Jayop · 08-03-2017 11:14PM

Consonata wrote: »

The real figure on UI probably hovers around the 27% to 30% in the North at the moment, with a lot of don't knows. Who knows, that might change over time.

The don't knows are all pretty much Catholic. Convince those and you're getting closer to 40.

Consonata · 08-03-2017 11:16PM

Jayop wrote: »

The don't knows are all pretty much Catholic. Convince those and you're getting closer to 40.

You never know, I would say that there are a good few small-u Unionists who just want peace and quiet.

blanch152 · 08-03-2017 11:17PM

Jayop wrote: »

Ah Ffs now you're really getting into petty pedantic point scoring now. You were saying that number was from the last major poll, I said it wasn't. Whether it was Rte or BBC (both strongly partitionist) is irrelevant.

I didn't use the word "major", I used the word "comprehensive". The last poll covering north and south is the one I referenced. I also acknowledged that I could be mistaken and there is a later one.

You claimed I missed another joint poll, which you couldn't find, and turned out to be a BBC-only poll.

I am not being pedantic but you are the one who said I "pulled the 13% figure from your arse." You might at least acknowledge that wasn't the case, and that the last comprehensive poll (covering North and South) by RTE and the BBC had the figure at 13%.

Getting back on topic, if Brexit has only brought the figure from 13% to 22%, it hardly changes much, does it?

FrancieBrady · 08-03-2017 11:18PM

blanch152 wrote: »

I didn't use the word "major", I used the word "comprehensive". The last poll covering north and south is the one I referenced. I also acknowledged that I could be mistaken and there is a later one.

You claimed I missed another joint poll, which you couldn't find, and turned out to be a BBC-only poll.

I am not being pedantic but you are the one who said I "pulled the 13% figure from your arse." You might at least acknowledge that wasn't the case, and that the last comprehensive poll (covering North and South) by RTE and the BBC had the figure at 13%.

Getting back on topic, if Brexit has only brought the figure from 13% to 22%, it hardly changes much, does it?

Eh...Brexit hasn't happened yet.

Consonata · 08-03-2017 11:23PM

blanch152 wrote: »

I didn't use the word "major", I used the word "comprehensive". The last poll covering north and south is the one I referenced. I also acknowledged that I could be mistaken and there is a later one.

You claimed I missed another joint poll, which you couldn't find, and turned out to be a BBC-only poll.

I am not being pedantic but you are the one who said I "pulled the 13% figure from your arse." You might at least acknowledge that wasn't the case, and that the last comprehensive poll (covering North and South) by RTE and the BBC had the figure at 13%.

Getting back on topic, if Brexit has only brought the figure from 13% to 22%, it hardly changes much, does it?

I have already said the 13% figure isn't useful, and the 30% is much more meaningful as it shows more people are open to the idea of a UI in the future. If the campaigning was done right and if the impact of Brexit is as we believe i.e a hard border, then who knows what will happen.

FrancieBrady · 08-03-2017 11:26PM

Consonata wrote: »

I have already said the 13% figure isn't useful, and the 30% is much more meaningful as it shows more people are open to the idea of a UI in the future. If the campaigning was done right and if the impact of Brexit is as we believe i.e a hard border, then who knows what will happen.

There is also the likelihood that FG or FF will not be able to campaign against it come the time. Imagine FF campaigning against a UI???

Jayop · 09-03-2017 12:09AM

blanch152 wrote: »

I didn't use the word "major", I used the word "comprehensive". The last poll covering north and south is the one I referenced. I also acknowledged that I could be mistaken and there is a later one.

You claimed I missed another joint poll, which you couldn't find, and turned out to be a BBC-only poll.

I am not being pedantic but you are the one who said I "pulled the 13% figure from your arse." You might at least acknowledge that wasn't the case, and that the last comprehensive poll (covering North and South) by RTE and the BBC had the figure at 13%.

Getting back on topic, if Brexit has only brought the figure from 13% to 22%, it hardly changes much, does it?

1) we are literally only talking about the results from the North so whether RTE conducted a part of the poll is completely irrelevant and you're being massively pedantic.

Anyway, no point dragging this over and over. The fact remains that your 13% is hugely outdated.

And the fact also remains that 9% is a massive leap in 1 year regardless of what you think. The number of people who moved from "won't vote" to "don't know" also indicated a bigger swing to the UI than the actual 9%. Brexit has caused those "won't votes" to become more political and that would only benefit the UI cause.

Jayop · 09-03-2017 12:10AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is also the likelihood that FG or FF will not be able to campaign against it come the time. Imagine FF campaigning against a UI???

Depends who was in charge of FG. FF will never campaign against it regardless of the personal beliefs of the leadership at the time. If Leo is the top dog in FG I'd guess he'd argue against it as he's very much a partitionist.

Leonard Hofstadter · 09-03-2017 01:50AM

Jayop wrote: »

Depends who was in charge of FG. FF will never campaign against it regardless of the personal beliefs of the leadership at the time. If Leo is the top dog in FG I'd guess he'd argue against it as he's very much a partitionist.

Considering that Leo has been one of the most vocal in terms of criticising the British approach to Brexit, I'm not so sure about that at all.

I doubt anyone in Fine Gael would openly campaign against it, but obviously they wouldn't be as keen on it as other parties. They probably would be more keen to compromise with Unionists on certain matters than other parties, some members have openly been saying that we should rejoin the Commonwealth, for example - something that most people south of the border are at best indifferent to. That might be partly because they're not as in favour of it as other parties, but it might also indicate they've the best chance of making it work because they'll know there will have to be serious and perhaps unpalatable consequences (to those on the nationalist/republican side) to give it some shot of succeeding and so that we don't have loyalists doing to us what the IRA did to people in Britain.

listermint · 09-03-2017 08:56AM

captainspeed wrote: »

Considering that Leo has been one of the most vocal in terms of criticising the British approach to Brexit, I'm not so sure about that at all.

I doubt anyone in Fine Gael would openly campaign against it, but obviously they wouldn't be as keen on it as other parties. They probably would be more keen to compromise with Unionists on certain matters than other parties, some members have openly been saying that we should rejoin the Commonwealth, for example - something that most people south of the border are at best indifferent to. That might be partly because they're not as in favour of it as other parties, but it might also indicate they've the best chance of making it work because they'll know there will have to be serious and perhaps unpalatable consequences (to those on the nationalist/republican side) to give it some shot of succeeding and so that we don't have loyalists doing to us what the IRA did to people in Britain.

To what end though. If the UK handed back the north they wouldn't take it back afterwards.

johnnyskeleton · 09-03-2017 10:18AM

Jayop wrote: »

You said the most comprehensive poll in recent times. So you're just ignoring the one done last year by the BBC and RTE because the numbers don't suit you?

Like I said, from your rse.

blanch152 wrote: »

Nope, that's not the one you referenced:

You make a point of "calling me out" on what you believe are my lies, and are extremely precise in what you challenge. If I had said RTE were part of the poll, you would slaughter me on it. I will let it go because I am not that type, but you might want to lay off a bit. If you define comprehensive as being north and south, my point stands.

Mod note:

Please keep things civil and avoid overly personal comments. Please discuss the issues instead.

FrancieBrady · 09-03-2017 10:28AM

captainspeed wrote: »

Considering that Leo has been one of the most vocal in terms of criticising the British approach to Brexit, I'm not so sure about that at all.

I doubt anyone in Fine Gael would openly campaign against it, but obviously they wouldn't be as keen on it as other parties. They probably would be more keen to compromise with Unionists on certain matters than other parties, some members have openly been saying that we should rejoin the Commonwealth, for example - something that most people south of the border are at best indifferent to. That might be partly because they're not as in favour of it as other parties, but it might also indicate they've the best chance of making it work because they'll know there will have to be serious and perhaps unpalatable consequences (to those on the nationalist/republican side) to give it some shot of succeeding and so that we don't have loyalists doing to us what the IRA did to people in Britain.

I personally cannot see a scenario where a big enough, smart enough section of unionism/loyalism return to the gun and succeed in undermining the process. Yes, violent reaction is possible but it will be localised, unfocused and essentially unarmed.
Again and again we have seen this, the Never Never explosion of anger, whipped up by those on the comfy seats (mainly the DUP) and then the inevitable climbdown.
Unionism, with no achievable goal, would essentially be pragmatic.

What is interesting is, what happens now? Will we see a period of 'meek Unionism', where moderates will realise that 'hey this isn't too bad' or will we see the DUP dig its heels in over Arlene and try to whip up more sectarianism in a futile effort to restore their supremacy for a short while in what is an inexorable process - losing the majority permanently.

On the subject of the south's opinion, I don't think that a FF supporter would ever vote against a unification motion and I really don't think a FG leader could actively campaign against one either, they may not like it, but they could not actively discourage it. Same with their voters. A vote in favour in the south would always get by, come the day, imo.

A Little Pony · 09-03-2017 02:14PM

Consonata wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Before you make definitive statements like that, you might want to check back just a few posts in case you find something.......

The only useful figure in that one is "Do you want to see a United Ireland in your lifetime".

Which is:
Yes: 30%
No: 43%
Don't Know: 27%

Asking if you want a United Ireland now when there hasn't been any real substantial campaign for one in recent years, will cut into the 30% figure greatly since a lot of people would want to go for the status quo rather than risk it in an economically turbulent time.

That may change when there is actual demonstrable positives for a United Ireland, getting out of the blow-back of Brexit being a major one.
People seem to think that since there isn't a lot of positivity for a United Ireland in the north at the moment, that that won't change over time.

____________________________________________________________________________

Remember there is a key difference between:

"Do you support a United Ireland?"

and

"Will you vote yes in the unification referendum on x date?"

That is what the Sinn Fein is all about.
I question Sinn Fein regarding the red line of Arlene Foster. I think they will back down on it because while I was certain she would be forced to stand down from pressure within, it doesn't seem to be happening. So Sinn Fein will have to make a decision, back down on it or direct rule is coming.

I don't think Sinn Fein will be able to dictate who the leader of Unionism is and certainly the Unionist electorate after the election will just galvanize from the result for future elections, so I think they are barking up the wrong tree.

Arlene Foster and the RHI scandal

Comments