Bubbaclaus wrote: » I don't get the schools argument there, given most of the apartments were one beds which would have had no children, and I would have assumed a majority of the remainder would not have children of school age anyway given the make up of the blocks. Sounds like a convenient excuse to cover up another reason for being against it to be honest. The extended Luas proposal would mean a quick and easy commute into town also.
[Deleted User] wrote: » The school would have been built. It’s just objecting for the sake of it. Yet the northern arm of SF are approving high rise development in Belfast City Centre. A partitionist party with partitionist policies.
Fann Linn wrote: » Population of 10,000 and no school let alone other facilities. Seems a reasonable case for objecting.
starkid wrote: » take some of your own advice.https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/housing-crisis-finglas-charlestown-apartments-20712196 There's tonnes of this, its not all to do with the public land for Christ sakes. just keep an eye on O'Broins twitter feed and maybe you'll start to take your own advice in engaging in critical thinking.
SmokyMo wrote: » That is absolute nonsense that FG likes you to believe. Take a took a look at each of those objections and will be evident why. The most common denominator is giving away public land with money attached to a private developer who then stands to make 10x on that dev while tax payer left to foot the bill? No thank you. Engage some critical thinking please.
piplip87 wrote: » Another 590 homes objected to out by Charlestown today. Basically a short walk to the new Luas line, beside a shopping centre, Dessie Elis leading the charge this time. Now while no school or other facilities are an issue surely his time would be better spent lobbying for more facilities and not trying to stop people getting houses. I guess the more people who get housed equals less anger and less SF votes.
markodaly wrote: » Yes, I have noticed the media calling out SF hypocrisy the past week or so, from mandatory quarantining to objecting to housing developments left right and centre. It's easy to be in opposition shouting about all that is wrong, but it comes at a cost when they object to housing in the middle of a housing crisis. People are catching on that SF are deliberately objecting to housing for political purposes. It's a shame though, not all young people have mystery donors giving people like Pearse Doherty a dig out.
markodaly wrote: » Yes both Mary Lou and Eoin O'Brion were privately educated.
piplip87 wrote: » I see SF twitter is full swing calling out the FG candidate for the by election. Many using the fact he was privately educated as a weapon to beat him with. They haven't dug to deep in dear leaders education I'm guessing.
piplip87 wrote: » I see Louise O'Reilly caught out bad on TV last night. SF spent the first few months of the year crying out for mandatory hotel quarantine, have spent the last few weeks lambasting the exact same thing they fought to introduce. A bit like Marylou Open the pubs in November and lambasting all round her for opening them in December. What's more worrying is that the cult will still follow
blanch152 wrote: » You are missing the big picture here, I am not talking about an independent Northern Ireland anytime soon. Normalisation of society in Northern Ireland is the primary objective of the Alliance Party and other parties of the centre up there. The falling support for the two extreme parties shows that it is generating support. One of the inevitabilities of both sides realising that the other isn't the devil is a reexamination of everything that they have stood for. In that context, the similarities between them become more apparent. Northern Irish people are very different culturally to those in the rest of the UK and to those in Ireland. The Unionists cling to an old-fashioned outdated notion of being British, while the Nationalists cling to a similar old-fashioned outdated notion of Ireland unfree will never be at peace. Both are ideas of the past, not of the future. Lip service paid in the form of visits from Prince Charles and Shared Island units in the Department of the Taoiseach will not change any of that.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Alliance aren't looking for a 'independent NI' as well as nobody else who cares about it. Those who put their own selfish political power to the fore, talk about an independent NI...partitionists and ultra right Unionists and loyalists. The reason the adults don't think it feasible is that it would go beyond the senselessness of partition and heighten sectarian tensions even more. I.E. it would most likely precipitate a bloodbath. It is not and will not be a credible solution.
Fionn1952 wrote: » Jesus Christ, Blanch....how many times are you going to try this nonsense? Alliance voters are largely people who are fed up with the nonsense of SF and DUP. You have precisely zero evidence that they are more likely to be on the side on NI Separatism than Unification. Given that NI Separatism is a particularly niche view, generally held by only a small group of very hardline Loyalists, I'm very confident that more Alliance supporters favour Unification than NI Separatism. I've no idea why you're allowed to continue parroting this absolute nonsense, when I've had moderator action for a post stating that you're talking absolute boll*cks.
Brendan Bendar wrote: » Maybe in the time honored ways of Boards, you need to play’ the ball not the man’ The boy Blanch is entitled to his opinion too, you know.
blanch152 wrote: » Alliance voters are very much in the "not yet" camp, wanting Northern Ireland to sort out its own problems first. In the medium term, they are more likely to be on the side of an independent Northern Ireland than a united Ireland, as the sectarian-free society they hope for doesn't need anyone else.
Fionn1952 wrote: » The, 'if a border poll was held tomorrow' figure is fairly meaningless. By that reckoning, I'm a Unionist as I'd vote No if asked tomorrow! Alliance Party are likely to be the most mobile voters. Most sane people who aren't overly caught up in identity politics would vote for the status quo if presented with absolutely no plan or indication of what the alternative actually means. I'm actually quite surprised to see more now define themselves as Irish than British, and a whopping 40% consider themselves neither Nationalist nor Unionist. That's an awful lot of people open to persuasion (or indeed alienation). And yes, I think the other end of the spectrum, asking about Unification in a non-specific time in the future but also with no plan or indication of what would happen is also meaningless. We both know there are a hardline group on either side who will vote that way no matter what. That 40% in the middle....given that I think the backwards decisions of the DUP around any sort of social progress, their support of Brexit and the optics of a move to someone like Edwin Poots as a party leader are likely to alienate more than they attract, maybe not so cut and dry as you think.
downcow wrote: » Here is a report on it. https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html
Arbuckle wrote: » Where did you see that.
Fionn1952 wrote: » They are not a Unionist Party, designating them as such totally undermines what the party stands for. Saying, 'support for Unionist Parties stands at ____" and including votes for Alliance in that number is very clearly and obviously wrong. By voting for Alliance, one is not expressing an opinion either way on the issue, many may (softly) support continuation of the Union, some may (softly) support Unification, but it clearly isn't a core voting issue for these people, hence their decision to vote for a non-designated party. I'd also be very interested in reading the source for that figure; I'm not casting doubt over it (I would've imagined a very significant percentage of the Alliance vote to come from soft Unionists, though obviously more open to persuasion to supporting Unification than the average DUP voter), I'd just like to see the breakdown.
downcow wrote: » Recent poll of alliance voters showed them as 75% supporting union
Fionn1952 wrote: » Alliance are not a Pro-Union party. They specifically position themselves as not taking a position on the constitutional question and as an alternative to the green/orange politics of the North. It hugely demeans what they stand for when you try and shoehorn them into one camp or another for petty point scoring. Support for pro-Union parties is at 41% as per that poll. Support for pro-Unification parties is at 37%. Why sacrifice credibility to make a point that stands without the lies? At least it's not as bad as previous claims that they support NI Separatism I suppose.
[Deleted User] wrote: » The Alliance Party are the canary in the mine for the tired 'dem un' nationalism of the DUP and SF. The SDLP also have some excellent performers. The UUP definitely have a challenge on their hands to bring younger unionists along a journey, but it seems this Beatty lad is a moderate. Poots and O'Neill is the very definition of misery.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0c95fbacfd3f8db330cceee65321bca3.svg)
