The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

Fionn1952

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

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.

blanch152

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.

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.

FrancieBrady

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Fionn1952

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.

Aye, fair point Brendan...definitely went through the ball and caught a bit of the man on that one.

Frustration getting the better of me there.

blanch152

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.

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

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.

I think the only significant cultural difference you have found is that some of them are fond of Sainsbury sandwiches.

Partition, caused the conflict/war and is now causing a whole other set of problems for the UK, the EU and us.
An independent NI will never solve that fundamental problem, it will only exacerbate it and come dangerously close to causing it to go up in flames again.

That is why you will not find adults even remotely considering it, now or in the future.

piplip87

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

markodaly

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

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.

piplip87

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.

markodaly

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.

Yes both Mary Lou and Eoin O'Brion were privately educated.

blanch152

markodaly wrote: »

Yes both Mary Lou and Eoin O'Brion were privately educated.

That will be brushed over.

SmokyMo

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.

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

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.

blanch152

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.

There is a clear pattern emerging of Sinn Fein on the ground frustrating every single initiative to provide housing. It is a deeply cynical political move, however, people are beginning to see through it.

starkid

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.

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.

FrancieBrady

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.

It's clearly to do with bad planning.

drdidlittle

You would think he would focus on getting the services, not stopping the build. Only propagating their own narrative.
If SF get into power there will be loads of tut tutting and finger wagging if anyone dare object to any inappropriate development.

Fann Linn

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.

Population of 10,000 and no school let alone other facilities. Seems a reasonable case for objecting.

Fann Linn

Fann Linn wrote: »

Population of 10,000 and no school let alone other facilities. Seems a reasonable case for objecting.

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.

Bubbaclaus

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.

Fann Linn

[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.

I'm sure it would. And I'm sure they said that to the other 9,999 people when they asked where their school was.
Lol.

FrancieBrady

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.

Sounds to me from reading the objectors opinions that the developers are unbelievably proposing to repeat the mistakes of places like Ballymun - brilliant in conception but disastrous in reality because of the issues pointed out by the objectors.

The housing crisis s not a charter to repeat the mistakes of bad planning.

jm08

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.

Well, they are putting a creche in if there are to be no children. No parking, parks and no space left to include them.



Sounds like Ballymun Mark II.

IAmTheReign

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.

This argument again? SF were all for giving over land to private developers as an incentive to build when they ran Dublin city council. It's bad enough that they go on about the housing crisis while blocking developments, it's a whole other level that they're now getting away with torpedoing developments they pushed for!

This was how they felt in 2017;

Plans to build almost 1,700 homes on three Dublin City Council sites, the city’s most ambitious housing programme since the property crash, have been approved by councillors.

The “mixed tenure” developments at O’Devaney Gardens, St Michael’s Estate and Oscar Traynor Road will have 30 per cent social housing, 20 per cent affordable rental, and 50 per cent private homes. More than 1,000 of the 1,700 homes will be apartments.

...

The chairman of the council’s housing committee, Sinn Féin’s Daithí Doolan, said the initiative was not just about bricks and mortar but about building communities. “We are in the midst of a housing crisis caused by years of starvation of funding for housing. What we have in front of us is a plan to deliver up to 1,700 homes for the city.”

The plans were approved by 53 to eight councillors. Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Labour and the Green Party, and several independents voted in favour. Anti-Austerity Alliance-People Before Profit, the Workers Party and some independents voted against the plans, saying they represented the privatisation of public land.

But in 2020 the plan they pushed for isn't good enough anymore;

Dublin City Council's head of housing says plans for a major development at a site on Oscar Traynor Road are 'back to square one'.

Brendan Kenny says revised plan could take up to eight years to implement.

Dublin City Council has expressed “serious reservations” over the revised plans for the housing development in Santry.

On Monday, councillors approved a plan which would see 80% of the land used for social housing, with 20% for affordable housing.

A previous deal would have meant 50% of homes sold by Glenveagh developers, 30% for social housing and 20% for affordable housing.

However, councillors last November rejected the bid to sell the land to the private developers.

Following Monday's vote, Sinn Féin TD Denise Mitchell was among those who welcomed the latest development.

She said it would be a huge boost to people "who’ve been locked out of the housing market because of the ridiculous cost of buying in the area", as well as those on the social housing list..

They also tried, but failed, to stop the development at O'Devaney Gardens;

COUNCILLORS ON DUBLIN City Council have rejected a motion calling for the support of the O’Devaney redevelopment project to be rescinded.

The motion was tabled by Independent councillor John Lyons this evening with the support of a dozen Sinn Féin and Independent councillors.

However, it was defeated by a majority of councillors – 61.5% to 38.5% – at a vote during tonight’s council meeting.

FrancieBrady

IAmTheReign wrote: »

This argument again? SF were all for giving over land to private developers as an incentive to build when they ran Dublin city council. It's bad enough that they go on about the housing crisis while blocking developments, it's a whole other level that they're now getting away with torpedoing developments they pushed for!

This was how they felt in 2017;



But in 2020 the plan they pushed for isn't good enough anymore;



They also tried, but failed, to stop the development at O'Devaney Gardens;

Key sentence there is 'building communities'.

It's clear from the objections to this develpment (not just from SF) that this is just throwing up apartments with no provision for a 'community' infrastructure. i.e. Bad planning.

starkid

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's clearly to do with bad planning.

yes of course it is.

IAmTheReign

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Key sentence there is 'building communities'.

It's clear from the objections to this develpment (not just from SF) that this is just throwing up apartments with no provision for a 'community' infrastructure. i.e. Bad planning.

No the objection was that public land was going to be sold to a private developer and some of it would be used to build private housing. At no point was there any discussion about the plan itself. Sinn Fein appear to have collective amnesia that the plan to sell the land to a private developer came from them.

https://twitter.com/EOBroin/status/1328431885563944962?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1328431885563944962%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublish.twitter.com%2F%3Fquery%3Dhttps3A2F2Ftwitter.com2FEOBroin2Fstatus2F1328431885563944962widget%3DTweet

starkid

Fann Linn wrote: »

Population of 10,000 and no school let alone other facilities. Seems a reasonable case for objecting.

Christ on a bike. No schools? No facilities? What?

This country is ****ed with this thinking, it truly is.

There's at least 15 schools in the vicinity.

Shops, employment, transport, relatively close to city centre.

Its excuse after excuse for those like SF who talk out both sides of their mouths.

the argument around Ballymun mark 2 is such a fallacy, and misnomer.