Armchair Supporter
Well-Known Member
It isn't a pleasant experience.
You are caught in personal conflict between staying civil and wanting to set the dogs on them.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Irish Current Affairs.
- Thread starter Armchair Supporter
- Start date
-
- Tags
- current affairs irish n.i. roi
It isn't a pleasant experience.
You are caught in personal conflict between staying civil and wanting to set the dogs on them.
Armchair Supporter
Well-Known Member
Local elections coming up...its face saving
Same in the ROI.
The lampost signs are fucking atrocious and a public nuisance. I'd ban 'em.
Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
Having lived in the North in the early 80s and visited the South a couple of times a year for the last 30 years, I'm really interested in Irish affairs.
What's puzzling me at the moment is house prices. Where is the money coming from to maintain the housing bubble ? In Leitrim last year, a local landowner was telling me that the bubble has burst and many people are in negative equity but I'm not seeing reports of that abd house prices seem the same (I'd like to buy somewhere having, stupidly, not done so in the 80s)
I can't see the jobs or industry that enables people to afford those huge houses. Anyone tell me what's going on ?
What's puzzling me at the moment is house prices. Where is the money coming from to maintain the housing bubble ? In Leitrim last year, a local landowner was telling me that the bubble has burst and many people are in negative equity but I'm not seeing reports of that abd house prices seem the same (I'd like to buy somewhere having, stupidly, not done so in the 80s)
I can't see the jobs or industry that enables people to afford those huge houses. Anyone tell me what's going on ?
Armchair Supporter
Well-Known Member
Having lived in the North in the early 80s and visited the South a couple of times a year for the last 30 years, I'm really interested in Irish affairs.
What's puzzling me at the moment is house prices. Where is the money coming from to maintain the housing bubble ? In Leitrim last year, a local landowner was telling me that the bubble has burst and many people are in negative equity but I'm not seeing reports of that abd house prices seem the same (I'd like to buy somewhere having, stupidly, not done so in the 80s)
I can't see the jobs or industry that enables people to afford those huge houses. Anyone tell me what's going on ?
A) its recoil from the complete collapse of the housing market in 2007.
B) The Irish are obsessed with property.
C) Building land is very heavily restricted and controlled (to the benefit of land owners but thats another thread)
D) The government is piss poor at managing the economy so that work and employment is spread throughout the country rather than concentrated in just one county.
E) People can't afford them. Ireland misses out on much industry because of the high price/low availability of housing
I've heard nothing since the priest's standing ovation to recall that the reason for the impasse was Arlene's refusal to resign over the heating subsidy farce.Hmmm...sceptical but hopeful
New Stormont talks set to take place, say Prime Minister and Taoiseach
https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/...5923#ICID=Android_BelfastLiveNewsApp_AppShare
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Nor mine, I think it's something to do with the dogs.id love a politician to call at my door...it has never happened
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
A,B,C,D and E) Social Housing just hasn't been built, full stop, at any kind of a reasonable level since 2011 as Fine Gael refuse to cede control of it to the local authorities and as a result there's far too much duplication and triplication of bureaucracy and far too little in the way of new builds. On top of that they're still pursuing the private/public shite that has done nothing but drive up costs (case in point being one developer in Balbriggan managing to buy land, secure planning permission and build 2&3 bed terraced properties that they then sold on the private market for €190k-€230k, the same house models built on FCC owned lands were provided to the government for social housing at a cost of €280k-€340k a unit).A) its recoil from the complete collapse of the housing market in 2007.
B) The Irish are obsessed with property.
C) Building land is very heavily restricted and controlled (to the benefit of land owners but thats another thread)
D) The government is piss poor at managing the economy so that work and employment is spread throughout the country rather than concentrated in just one county.
E) People can't afford them. Ireland misses out on much industry because of the high price/low availability of housing
A lack of social housing pushes those in need into the private rental market, their rent supplements from the DSP and occupancy levels push rental prices to insane levels and that in turn attracts investors to the rental market who are able to make cash purchases of housing stock (some of which is left empty to keep rental prices rising), which in turn drives up the cost to a normal mortgage buyer to crazy levels.
The only way this gets sorted is allowing the local authorities their own budgets to hire construction staff and build their own bloody housing stock again.
AlexWilliamsGloves
Well-Known Member
Follow up to the local elections here:
Large gains by the Alliance party...a reflection of gains by the Lib Dems.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...psnj0oHt7RxYj3JSDyQwvOjduxLZzioNpuoMO5BfuPLCo
It used to be thought that you couldn't really be pro-Union unless you voted UUP or DUP... but if that's true, why does the Alliance Party do so well in traditional unionist heartlands?
Here are some sobering facts. Unionists are now a minority of the 462 councillors elected last Thursday. There are only 19 unionists out of 60 councillors in Belfast. Only six of the 20 MLAs in the Belfast constituencies are unionist. Unionists are now a minority in the Assembly: 40-50.
In the greater Belfast area (covering the Belfast, North Down and Ards, Castlereagh and Lisburn and Antrim and Newtownabbey council areas) Alliance outpolled the UUP by almost 50,000 to 35,000 votes.
The Green Party outpolled the UUP in Belfast by 6,785 to 6,709 (enabling them to pick up two of their four seats because UUP candidates were eliminated first), while People Before Profit ran just 954 votes behind the UUP. Both those smaller parties ended up with more councillors.
It is now possible that unionists could lose their second Euro seat on May 23. The UUP's Danny Kennedy will not only be competing with the DUP and TUV for first preferences, he will also be in a major transfer battle for survival. Naomi Long looks well-placed, assuming she's able to hold on to Alliance's 11.5% vote (which I think is likely), to benefit from significant trickle-down from Sinn Fein, SDLP and others.
If the second unionist seat is lost it will not only be a hammer-blow for the UUP (which has held it since 1979), it will also be an enormous psychological blow for unionism: another piece of hard electoral confirmation that just holding on to what they have may be an even bigger challenge than making gains.
It's okay for the DUP to say that they are continuing to hold on and add on, but that doesn't really mean all that much if the overall unionist vote continues to decline.
In the 2014 local council elections, there were 24 unionist councillors in Belfast: 13 DUP, seven UUP, three PUP and one TUV. There are 19 now. The DUP added two, but the overall unionist numbers fell.
At some point soon, it will probably be impossible for the DUP to hold on to their MPs in North and South Belfast, even if they have an electoral pact with other unionists.
Even in East Belfast, which was once the brightest jewel in unionism's electoral crown, the DUP will probably require a pact. And the more pacts are required to hold seats, the likelier it is that the small unionist parties - PUP and TUV - will vanish altogether, while the UUP finds it impossible to resist the electoral arguments in favour of a formal merger with the DUP.
A few weeks ago, a veteran unionist said to me: "Did you ever think the time would come when unionists needed a pact to secure East Belfast?" I talked to him again on Saturday. He shook his head: "Dear me, I never thought I'd see the day when Alliance would have more councillors in Belfast than the UUP. How do we stop this?"
I have a very close friend: we've known each other since university days in the 1970s. He would always have voted unionist. That is, until the 2010 General Election. He voted for Naomi Long; and he has voted Alliance in every election since then. He doesn't regard himself as any less of a unionist and would vote to remain in the UK if there were a border poll.
When I discussed the council elections with him on Sunday he made a point I had never really considered before: "When it comes down to it, Alex, I would now describe myself as pro-Union rather than just a unionist. There is a big difference between the two terms and I don't think the unionist parties have recognised that difference. Alliance isn't picking up 'unionist' votes as such; it is picking up pro-Union people like me. People who find themselves increasingly uncomfortable with how unionism manifests itself here."
As I say, I'd never really considered this point before. But it's a good one. When the Alliance Party was formed, it was regarded as a pro-Union, small unionist party. Many of its early members and founders were rising to the challenges set out in Terence O'Neill's "Ulster at the Crossroads" speech; as well as responding to the rise of Paisley, William Craig's Vanguard and what they regarded as a drift to the hard Right. In their first five elections - 1973-1979 - they won an average of 11.5% of the vote (which is what they won again last Thursday), mostly from within the pro-Union/unionist community. As the Troubles took hold, they faded into the electoral background.
Are we now seeing the re-emergence of that earlier Alliance core; people who want to stay in the UK, but who aren't happy with the message coming from the DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP? It has become almost a cliche to hear elements of unionism describe Alliance as "no friend of unionism", yet those same critics can't seem to explain why Alliance does so well in what would once have been regarded as reasonably safe unionist areas.
Two immediate reasons seem obvious: increasing numbers of pro-Union, as opposed to unionist, voters don't regard Alliance as a threat to their identity; and they also believe that Alliance policy on some key social/moral/equality issues better reflects their own stance than the "place apart" policy of unionist parties.
So, maybe the unionist parties need to reflect on the difference between someone who describes themselves as pro-Union and someone who describes themselves as a unionist. It used to be thought that you couldn't really be pro-Union if you weren't voting for a unionist party. But if that is true, then how does unionism reach out to people who might now be voting for parties which don't define themselves as unionist (but who aren't pro-Irish unity)? More importantly, how do unionist parties respond to the societal changes happening all around them?
In my case, I describe myself as a pan-UK unionist: if something is legal in England, Scotland and Wales (and I'm talking about issues like same-sex-marriage and abortion law reform), it must be legal in Northern Ireland. If it isn't, because unionists stop it, then we are undermining the very equality of citizenship that should be at the heart of the Union and the constituent parts.
That is what my friend means when he chooses pro-Union over unionist. It seems to be how increasing numbers of unionists are seeing themselves. It's probably how many young people from a once typically unionist background see themselves. The list of sobering facts I set out at the start will continue to lengthen if the unionist parties don't embark on an examination of how they are seen and how they want to be seen.
A border poll - which will happen if that list lengthens - won't just be won by a unionist vote. It requires the entire pro-Union community to support the UK link.
Large gains by the Alliance party...a reflection of gains by the Lib Dems.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...psnj0oHt7RxYj3JSDyQwvOjduxLZzioNpuoMO5BfuPLCo
It used to be thought that you couldn't really be pro-Union unless you voted UUP or DUP... but if that's true, why does the Alliance Party do so well in traditional unionist heartlands?
Here are some sobering facts. Unionists are now a minority of the 462 councillors elected last Thursday. There are only 19 unionists out of 60 councillors in Belfast. Only six of the 20 MLAs in the Belfast constituencies are unionist. Unionists are now a minority in the Assembly: 40-50.
In the greater Belfast area (covering the Belfast, North Down and Ards, Castlereagh and Lisburn and Antrim and Newtownabbey council areas) Alliance outpolled the UUP by almost 50,000 to 35,000 votes.
The Green Party outpolled the UUP in Belfast by 6,785 to 6,709 (enabling them to pick up two of their four seats because UUP candidates were eliminated first), while People Before Profit ran just 954 votes behind the UUP. Both those smaller parties ended up with more councillors.
It is now possible that unionists could lose their second Euro seat on May 23. The UUP's Danny Kennedy will not only be competing with the DUP and TUV for first preferences, he will also be in a major transfer battle for survival. Naomi Long looks well-placed, assuming she's able to hold on to Alliance's 11.5% vote (which I think is likely), to benefit from significant trickle-down from Sinn Fein, SDLP and others.
If the second unionist seat is lost it will not only be a hammer-blow for the UUP (which has held it since 1979), it will also be an enormous psychological blow for unionism: another piece of hard electoral confirmation that just holding on to what they have may be an even bigger challenge than making gains.
It's okay for the DUP to say that they are continuing to hold on and add on, but that doesn't really mean all that much if the overall unionist vote continues to decline.
In the 2014 local council elections, there were 24 unionist councillors in Belfast: 13 DUP, seven UUP, three PUP and one TUV. There are 19 now. The DUP added two, but the overall unionist numbers fell.
At some point soon, it will probably be impossible for the DUP to hold on to their MPs in North and South Belfast, even if they have an electoral pact with other unionists.
Even in East Belfast, which was once the brightest jewel in unionism's electoral crown, the DUP will probably require a pact. And the more pacts are required to hold seats, the likelier it is that the small unionist parties - PUP and TUV - will vanish altogether, while the UUP finds it impossible to resist the electoral arguments in favour of a formal merger with the DUP.
A few weeks ago, a veteran unionist said to me: "Did you ever think the time would come when unionists needed a pact to secure East Belfast?" I talked to him again on Saturday. He shook his head: "Dear me, I never thought I'd see the day when Alliance would have more councillors in Belfast than the UUP. How do we stop this?"
I have a very close friend: we've known each other since university days in the 1970s. He would always have voted unionist. That is, until the 2010 General Election. He voted for Naomi Long; and he has voted Alliance in every election since then. He doesn't regard himself as any less of a unionist and would vote to remain in the UK if there were a border poll.
When I discussed the council elections with him on Sunday he made a point I had never really considered before: "When it comes down to it, Alex, I would now describe myself as pro-Union rather than just a unionist. There is a big difference between the two terms and I don't think the unionist parties have recognised that difference. Alliance isn't picking up 'unionist' votes as such; it is picking up pro-Union people like me. People who find themselves increasingly uncomfortable with how unionism manifests itself here."
As I say, I'd never really considered this point before. But it's a good one. When the Alliance Party was formed, it was regarded as a pro-Union, small unionist party. Many of its early members and founders were rising to the challenges set out in Terence O'Neill's "Ulster at the Crossroads" speech; as well as responding to the rise of Paisley, William Craig's Vanguard and what they regarded as a drift to the hard Right. In their first five elections - 1973-1979 - they won an average of 11.5% of the vote (which is what they won again last Thursday), mostly from within the pro-Union/unionist community. As the Troubles took hold, they faded into the electoral background.
Are we now seeing the re-emergence of that earlier Alliance core; people who want to stay in the UK, but who aren't happy with the message coming from the DUP/UUP/TUV/PUP? It has become almost a cliche to hear elements of unionism describe Alliance as "no friend of unionism", yet those same critics can't seem to explain why Alliance does so well in what would once have been regarded as reasonably safe unionist areas.
Two immediate reasons seem obvious: increasing numbers of pro-Union, as opposed to unionist, voters don't regard Alliance as a threat to their identity; and they also believe that Alliance policy on some key social/moral/equality issues better reflects their own stance than the "place apart" policy of unionist parties.
So, maybe the unionist parties need to reflect on the difference between someone who describes themselves as pro-Union and someone who describes themselves as a unionist. It used to be thought that you couldn't really be pro-Union if you weren't voting for a unionist party. But if that is true, then how does unionism reach out to people who might now be voting for parties which don't define themselves as unionist (but who aren't pro-Irish unity)? More importantly, how do unionist parties respond to the societal changes happening all around them?
In my case, I describe myself as a pan-UK unionist: if something is legal in England, Scotland and Wales (and I'm talking about issues like same-sex-marriage and abortion law reform), it must be legal in Northern Ireland. If it isn't, because unionists stop it, then we are undermining the very equality of citizenship that should be at the heart of the Union and the constituent parts.
That is what my friend means when he chooses pro-Union over unionist. It seems to be how increasing numbers of unionists are seeing themselves. It's probably how many young people from a once typically unionist background see themselves. The list of sobering facts I set out at the start will continue to lengthen if the unionist parties don't embark on an examination of how they are seen and how they want to be seen.
A border poll - which will happen if that list lengthens - won't just be won by a unionist vote. It requires the entire pro-Union community to support the UK link.
AlexWilliamsGloves
Well-Known Member
Another wee bit of insight into our glorious DUP:
https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/...Ra9KT0lya_kv9EM7WRCcJzbe4fnoaE2VEcHXwDrdxJYWQ
DUP politician Jim Wells has been challenged by GMB hosts Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid on his views on same sex couples appearing on Strictly Come Dancing.
The former Health Minister said he wouldn't watch the popular show after they revealed they would be open to allow same sex couples to take part next year.
Wells said it would be 'challenging viewing' for a family and would watch something else instead and it would 'ruin it for family viewing'.
In a heated discussion on Good Morning Britain, hosts Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid took Mr Wells to task on his views, asking him his reasons behind his views.
He said: "It's family viewing, you've had a busy week you sit down with the family and you watch pure entertainment, the last thing you want to do is to be challenged and to be asked deep intellectual questions."
To which Susanna Reid questioned him, 'what's challenging about same sex couples?'
When Reid posed the question, 'what if those children were sitting down with two mums or two dads?'
Mr Wells said: "Well, that's a situation obviously I have no control over but the vast majority of people will not be sitting in that situation they will be sitting with mum and dad."
When asked by Morgan why same sex couples weren't 'entertaining' to Mr Wells, he responded: "It's not that they're not entertaining, it's for the fact that the same reason Blind Date went down the plughole that once it went to the radical change of having homosexual or lesbian couples on it, people switched off."
Mr Wells went on to say that he thought it was 'radical' to have that type of programme on before the 9pm watershed.
After the politician claimed he was being insulted by Morgan, the broadcaster replied: "I'm not insulting you, I'm insulting your bigotry, which is irrational, inconsistent, makes no sense whatsoever, your favourite shows have loads of gay presenters on, there's a gay judge on Strictly, you think that's fine but you won't have two people - who may not even be gay - dancing together."
https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/...Ra9KT0lya_kv9EM7WRCcJzbe4fnoaE2VEcHXwDrdxJYWQ
DUP politician Jim Wells has been challenged by GMB hosts Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid on his views on same sex couples appearing on Strictly Come Dancing.
The former Health Minister said he wouldn't watch the popular show after they revealed they would be open to allow same sex couples to take part next year.
Wells said it would be 'challenging viewing' for a family and would watch something else instead and it would 'ruin it for family viewing'.
In a heated discussion on Good Morning Britain, hosts Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid took Mr Wells to task on his views, asking him his reasons behind his views.
He said: "It's family viewing, you've had a busy week you sit down with the family and you watch pure entertainment, the last thing you want to do is to be challenged and to be asked deep intellectual questions."
To which Susanna Reid questioned him, 'what's challenging about same sex couples?'
When Reid posed the question, 'what if those children were sitting down with two mums or two dads?'
Mr Wells said: "Well, that's a situation obviously I have no control over but the vast majority of people will not be sitting in that situation they will be sitting with mum and dad."
When asked by Morgan why same sex couples weren't 'entertaining' to Mr Wells, he responded: "It's not that they're not entertaining, it's for the fact that the same reason Blind Date went down the plughole that once it went to the radical change of having homosexual or lesbian couples on it, people switched off."
Mr Wells went on to say that he thought it was 'radical' to have that type of programme on before the 9pm watershed.
After the politician claimed he was being insulted by Morgan, the broadcaster replied: "I'm not insulting you, I'm insulting your bigotry, which is irrational, inconsistent, makes no sense whatsoever, your favourite shows have loads of gay presenters on, there's a gay judge on Strictly, you think that's fine but you won't have two people - who may not even be gay - dancing together."
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
Another wee bit of insight into our glorious DUP:
https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/...Ra9KT0lya_kv9EM7WRCcJzbe4fnoaE2VEcHXwDrdxJYWQ
DUP politician Jim Wells has been challenged by GMB hosts Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid on his views on same sex couples appearing on Strictly Come Dancing.
The former Health Minister said he wouldn't watch the popular show after they revealed they would be open to allow same sex couples to take part next year.
Wells said it would be 'challenging viewing' for a family and would watch something else instead and it would 'ruin it for family viewing'.
In a heated discussion on Good Morning Britain, hosts Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid took Mr Wells to task on his views, asking him his reasons behind his views.
He said: "It's family viewing, you've had a busy week you sit down with the family and you watch pure entertainment, the last thing you want to do is to be challenged and to be asked deep intellectual questions."
To which Susanna Reid questioned him, 'what's challenging about same sex couples?'
When Reid posed the question, 'what if those children were sitting down with two mums or two dads?'
Mr Wells said: "Well, that's a situation obviously I have no control over but the vast majority of people will not be sitting in that situation they will be sitting with mum and dad."
When asked by Morgan why same sex couples weren't 'entertaining' to Mr Wells, he responded: "It's not that they're not entertaining, it's for the fact that the same reason Blind Date went down the plughole that once it went to the radical change of having homosexual or lesbian couples on it, people switched off."
Mr Wells went on to say that he thought it was 'radical' to have that type of programme on before the 9pm watershed.
After the politician claimed he was being insulted by Morgan, the broadcaster replied: "I'm not insulting you, I'm insulting your bigotry, which is irrational, inconsistent, makes no sense whatsoever, your favourite shows have loads of gay presenters on, there's a gay judge on Strictly, you think that's fine but you won't have two people - who may not even be gay - dancing together."
The Republic in general has become a much more liberal thinking society. We've progressed way beyond The North who once saw the influence of the Catholic Church on policy in government as a motivation and a stick to beat any hope of a United Ireland.
What is the feeling amongst the youth up North Alex?
We've still a long way to go but I do feel that in a lot of ways society down south has matured into the 21st century quicker than up North.
The only thing that I think would sway a traditional Unionist, is perhaps money in his pocket. If Union with the other 26 counties under a Dublin government is ever to happen though, I think it will still have to have a duel citizen arrangement of some sort to work.
What do you think. If you end up crashing out of the EU what will the feeling be. What do you think will happen to the DUP in an election?