Westminster Election 12th December 2019

[Rossfan]

Richer Countries helping poorer Countries.
We were happy to get loads of Cohesion and Structural funds in the 1990s.
Now we help others.
If/when Stormont gets going again will it have a presence/office of any sort in Brussels??

[RadioGAAGAA]

No it isn't. It is completely unfair to put that pressure on a 10 year old. And lets be straight, what the Grammar system is doing is taking the best and easiest taught students and to f**k with the rest. It's laziness on behalf of the school and the teachers. It's dividing society on basis of intelligence and in some cases money, when it is already divided here on religion.

Name an alternative that works better.

Splitting up classes on the basis of intelligence is the sensible thing to do - otherwise the pace is too quick for the stupidest, and too slow for the smartest - meaning both are disadvantaged. Its a global economy. Wee Paddy from down the road isn't competing with wee Sammy from up the road. They are both competing with Chuck in the USA, Jian in China and Arhun from India.


Society already is divided on the basis of intelligence! What percent of idiots who can barely spell their own name do you think are in the top 5% of salaries?

[Franko]

A border poll is far down the list of things that need to happen between now an Irish reunification. Higher on the list is the desegregation of society in the north along religious lines, but I don't see a whole lot of progress being made on that front. SF have had the education portfolio for years and were able to scrap the grammar school system over the objections of recalcitrant people who wanted to retain selection, but don't seem to have the same eagerness for scrapping the unacceptable practice of keeping school kids segregated by religion until they go to the tech or go to Uni.

In fact SF's business model seems to be "complain about how unfairly treated we are by the evil Brits and that should keep the votes coming in." They'll probably spend the next decade banging on about why we need a border poll now and how unreasonable the Brits are for not providing one.

Ahh the magic bullet of integrated education.
Will these schools teach Irish history, Gaelige, do gaelic games?

Yes

No.
Integrated education is a fantastic idea, however, it is not universally implemented in the same way.
In my experience of it, there was no irish history, Irish language or gaelic games. However, there were Ulster Scotts classes, Badminton, soccer and table tennis.
In a school primarily staffed by Catholic Staff, with Protestant management. A primarily catholic intake at that time - and kids not getting places as there were too many catholics. Quite a few Protestant families complaining about the lack of Gaelic/Irish as they wanted there kids to experience something they felt they couldn't get elsewhere and also quite a few protestant families complaining when a teacher wore a gaelic top to a sponsored walk fund raiser.
The quality of education was also not what either the state or catholic schools (primary schools) as hardly anyone sat or had the ability to sit the transfer test.
No-one was happy with the level of integration, or lack thereof, in the integrated school I have experience of.

From what I have seen of it, Integrated education will only work if the management, staff and families who send their kids to these schools live and breath and integrated ethos. Staff, IMO, integrated schools are only there as they couldn't get a job in a school from their respective tradition. In many cases, kids in the schools are the same, though, there is a sizeable number of mixed marriages with kids in integrated schools.

I know I've gone on a bit of a rant there on Integrated Education, but it galls me to hear so much spouted about the virtues of Integrated Education when the realities don't really live up to the expectations.

Can't believe you could get so irked about a  spot of badmington and table tennis!  Surely the main virtue of integrated is that young people are being educated together from an early age, building life long friendships and realising that the folk from the other "community" don't have two heads.

Good point.  Clearly he has an issue with Badminton and Table Tennis.

In fact, you know what would be a good idea.  We should ignore everything else he has said and focus on his irrational hatred for these sports.

The sports young people play at school is not the be all and end all.  I was merely pointing out that sharing a classroom from an early age with people from a different background is the main benefit of integrated education.

Please drop the pretence that you were being genuine.  Below is the list of issues he had with the school.  You said it was 'badmington' and tennis.

No Irish history

No Irish language

No Gaelic Games

Protestant families complaining about the lack of Gaelic/Irish as they wanted there kids to experience something they felt they couldn't get elsewhere

Kids not getting places as there were too many catholics

Protestant families complaining when a teacher wore a gaelic top to a sponsored walk fund raiser

The quality of education was not what either the state or catholic schools (primary schools) provided

Hardly anyone sat or had the ability to sit the transfer test

No-one was happy with the level of integration

[trailer]

No it isn't. It is completely unfair to put that pressure on a 10 year old. And lets be straight, what the Grammar system is doing is taking the best and easiest taught students and to f**k with the rest. It's laziness on behalf of the school and the teachers. It's dividing society on basis of intelligence and in some cases money, when it is already divided here on religion.

Name an alternative that works better.

Splitting up classes on the basis of intelligence is the sensible thing to do - otherwise the pace is too quick for the stupidest, and too slow for the smartest - meaning both are disadvantaged. Its a global economy. Wee Paddy from down the road isn't competing with wee Sammy from up the road. They are both competing with Chuck in the USA, Jian in China and Arhun from India.


Society already is divided on the basis of intelligence! What percent of idiots who can barely spell their own name do you think are in the top 5% of salaries?

Just teach the kids, like they do in primary school. Splitting kids on academic ability is the easiest and laziest way out. If your child turned up to u-10 training and there was two groups. One for the best and one for the worst you'd be pissed or at least you should be. Kids learn by example and they learn from each other. Taking the highest achievers out actually limits their ability to learn.

[RadioGAAGAA]

No it isn't. It is completely unfair to put that pressure on a 10 year old. And lets be straight, what the Grammar system is doing is taking the best and easiest taught students and to f**k with the rest. It's laziness on behalf of the school and the teachers. It's dividing society on basis of intelligence and in some cases money, when it is already divided here on religion.

Name an alternative that works better.

Splitting up classes on the basis of intelligence is the sensible thing to do - otherwise the pace is too quick for the stupidest, and too slow for the smartest - meaning both are disadvantaged. Its a global economy. Wee Paddy from down the road isn't competing with wee Sammy from up the road. They are both competing with Chuck in the USA, Jian in China and Arhun from India.


Society already is divided on the basis of intelligence! What percent of idiots who can barely spell their own name do you think are in the top 5% of salaries?

Just teach the kids, like they do in primary school.

I have outlined in that very post why that won't work!

Name an alternative that does work.

Splitting kids on academic ability is the easiest and laziest way out.

No - it is the logical solution to pacing lessons.

If your child turned up to u-10 training and there was two groups. One for the best and one for the worst you'd be pissed or at least you should be. Kids learn by example and they learn from each other.

... and do you think the team would be better or worse?

Taking the highest achievers out actually limits their ability to learn.

Limits whose ability to learn? The smartest?

[Franko]

No it isn't. It is completely unfair to put that pressure on a 10 year old. And lets be straight, what the Grammar system is doing is taking the best and easiest taught students and to f**k with the rest. It's laziness on behalf of the school and the teachers. It's dividing society on basis of intelligence and in some cases money, when it is already divided here on religion.

Name an alternative that works better.

Splitting up classes on the basis of intelligence is the sensible thing to do - otherwise the pace is too quick for the stupidest, and too slow for the smartest - meaning both are disadvantaged. Its a global economy. Wee Paddy from down the road isn't competing with wee Sammy from up the road. They are both competing with Chuck in the USA, Jian in China and Arhun from India.


Society already is divided on the basis of intelligence! What percent of idiots who can barely spell their own name do you think are in the top 5% of salaries?

Just teach the kids, like they do in primary school. Splitting kids on academic ability is the easiest and laziest way out. If your child turned up to u-10 training and there was two groups. One for the best and one for the worst you'd be pissed or at least you should be. Kids learn by example and they learn from each other. Taking the highest achievers out actually limits their ability to learn.

Another well thought out post by our resident expert.

[Applesisapples]

There are 2 main dynamics at play. Demographics are reducing the Unionist share of population. English nationalism is destroying Britishness

NI was created to give a state to a single identity British population. Irrespective of the union or a UI what happens when the majority of elected reps are from a catholic nationalist background? In that scenario what do unionists do? They are already in a minority albeit the balance of power rests with the liberal unionist Alliance party. Tough days ahead for unionism and that's not related to continued membership of the UK. A UI is not inevitable but could be achieved. However unlike the NI state to succeed it must be based on inclusiveness of a British identity. We are a ways of that as yet.

[Applesisapples]

It's easy to forget that there was a point in time when only for the catholic education sector catholics in NI would not have been educated and they weren't fully funded to the 70's.

[Kidder81]

Interestingly the newest education powerhouse, Estonia, do not stream children

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-50590581

[trailer]

No it isn't. It is completely unfair to put that pressure on a 10 year old. And lets be straight, what the Grammar system is doing is taking the best and easiest taught students and to f**k with the rest. It's laziness on behalf of the school and the teachers. It's dividing society on basis of intelligence and in some cases money, when it is already divided here on religion.

Name an alternative that works better.

Splitting up classes on the basis of intelligence is the sensible thing to do - otherwise the pace is too quick for the stupidest, and too slow for the smartest - meaning both are disadvantaged. Its a global economy. Wee Paddy from down the road isn't competing with wee Sammy from up the road. They are both competing with Chuck in the USA, Jian in China and Arhun from India.


Society already is divided on the basis of intelligence! What percent of idiots who can barely spell their own name do you think are in the top 5% of salaries?

Just teach the kids, like they do in primary school. Splitting kids on academic ability is the easiest and laziest way out. If your child turned up to u-10 training and there was two groups. One for the best and one for the worst you'd be pissed or at least you should be. Kids learn by example and they learn from each other. Taking the highest achievers out actually limits their ability to learn.

Another well thought out post by our resident expert.

Jesus I must start following you around the board rolling my eyes at every contribution you make.

[five points]

In that scenario, regardless of political persuasion, if we were to have on offer a scenario where we could re-join Europe and have all the same benefits our neighbours in ROI have I think it would be very difficult to argue against.

I'm amazed by this view that EU citizens enjoy huge benefits that are the envy of everyone else. The EU is essentially a bloated bureaucratic middleman that levies taxes on member states and, in the case of both Ireland and the UK, pays out substantially less than they pay in.

You do understand the benefits of the common market?

Of course I do. But countries outside the EU tend to do ok too. The Swiss and Norwegians aren't exactly beating down the door to join.

Richer Countries helping poorer Countries.
We were happy to get loads of Cohesion and Structural funds in the 1990s.
Now we help others.

Yeah but those transfers have nothing do with the alleged benefits of the EU to ROI residents that their counterparts up north are set to lose.

[seafoid]

There are 2 main dynamics at play. Demographics are reducing the Unionist share of population. English nationalism is destroying Britishness

NI was created to give a state to a single identity British population. Irrespective of the union or a UI what happens when the majority of elected reps are from a catholic nationalist background? In that scenario what do unionists do? They are already in a minority albeit the balance of power rests with the liberal unionist Alliance party. Tough days ahead for unionism and that's not related to continued membership of the UK. A UI is not inevitable but could be achieved. However unlike the NI state to succeed it must be based on inclusiveness of a British identity. We are a ways of that as yet.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/how-was-the-irish-border-drawn-in-the-first-place-1.3789571

How was the Irish Border drawn in the first place?
Three civil servants produced different options for temporary 'exclusion zone' in 1914

Conor Mulvagh


Nearing a century in existence the Irish Border has become the defining feature of Ireland's political geography. The Border was established in law in December 1920 but as an exclusion zone between two parts of the United Kingdom chalked for devolution, not independence. When the Anglo-Irish Treaty was ratified in 1922, the boundary line became an international border. But who drew the line in the first place and what thinking lay behind the decision to go for full six-county exclusion? In the spring of 1914, the British government secured secret approval for a strictly time-limited exclusion of an undetermined portion of Ulster from the leaders of nationalist Ireland – John Redmond, John Dillon, T P O'Connor, and Joseph Devlin.
Once the leadership of the Irish Parliamentary Party had been locked in, the British government began in earnest to draw up possible schemes for the exclusion of Ulster. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, Augustine Birrell, called upon three senior Irish civil servants to draw up a boundary for an Ulster exclusion zone. These were Birrell's undersecretary, Sir James B Dougherty; W F Bailey of the Estates Commissioners Office; and Sir Henry Augustus Robinson, vice-president of the Local Government Board for Ireland. Birrell set May 6th as the deadline for receipt of proposals from his three advisers. When submitted, each scheme included a justification for why certain communities were left north or south of the dividing line.
Ultimately it was Dougherty whose boundary scheme was adopted. On the eve of the first World War, Redmond and Edward Carson faced each other down for their claim to Fermanagh and Tyrone but following the 1916 Rising, Redmond abandoned his claim to what would become Northern Ireland's two Catholic-majority counties. Historian Roy Foster has described Redmond as "desperate . . . to achieve any settlement going" after the Rising.

Blue Billywig Video PlayerOf Crossmaglen nationalists, Robinson opined that they "are about the warmest lot I know"
Returning to 1914, the texts for the three exclusion schemes give unparalleled insight into the conceptual underpinnings of the modern Irish Border. Two stark points emerge. Firstly, decisions unsympathetic to large borderland communities were taken in the name of administrative efficiency. Secondly, the Border's architects explicitly bowed to force and the threat of violence. Decisions were made to leave substantial communities on the "wrong" side of the exclusion line because of the perceived strength of minority paramilitaries and agitators in their midst.
The Bailey scheme
Taking Bailey first, his was the most disruptive scheme and it paid the least heed to existing administrative boundaries. Instead, Bailey relied on physical geography to craft a more visible border. In Fermanagh, Bailey cut straight through both of the county's parliamentary divisions, running his boundary line directly up the middle of the Erne waterways system. Of the three schemes, Bailey's was the only one in which his accompanying notes made no acknowledgement to the scheme's temporary nature. Bailey's use of physical geography to create a visible and less permeable boundary line further suggests he had a permanent settlement in mind.
A reconstruction of W F Bailey's proposed borderline
Further down his boundary line, Bailey proposed the inclusion of the entire parliamentary division of North Monaghan within the unionist area. Monaghan was a county nobody else was even considering and North Monaghan had a two-thirds Catholic majority. Because his boundary line sliced through existing administrative units, it was impossible for Bailey to accurately estimate how many of the almost 1.2 million people he planned to exclude from the jurisdiction of the Home Rule parliament were Catholics and Protestants.
•   Brexit Borderlands: The Irish Times maps Ireland's border crossings
•   Brexit: An idiot's guide to the United Kingdom leaving the European Union
•   Wicklow shipping company 'had no contract' with UK no-deal Brexit firm


The Robinson scheme
By far the most thorough of the three exclusion schemes was that devised by Robinson. In drawing his boundary line, Robinson took local government boundaries as his operational unit: a method his undersecretary would later dismiss as unworkable. The Robinson scheme proposed the exclusion of 26.85 per cent of the population of Ireland and 28.58 per cent of Ireland's land by valuation. Robinson's exclusion zone was two-thirds Protestant and one-third Catholic. Of the three, Robinson's boundary line was the only one which explicitly considered infrastructure such as road and rail connections. Even though Robinson's line was not ultimately adopted, his justifications are highly instructive in explaining the thinking underpinning the final shape of the Irish Border, especially the inclusion of the two Catholic majority counties, Tyrone and Fermanagh, and the majority Catholic city of Derry.

On the eastern end of the boundary line, the Robinson scheme showed considerably more sympathy to Catholics than simple six-county exclusion. Robinson left south Armagh and south Down, including the heavily Catholic town of Newry, within Home Rule jurisdiction. One can only imagine how differently subsequent Irish history might have played out had south Armagh been under Dublin rule from the outset. In the western half of Ulster, Robinson made a number of sweeping decisions regarding large swathes of territory with solid Catholic majorities.
In drawing his line, Robinson factored in "the degrees of obstreperousness in the rival sectarian factions on the border line". In terms of appeasing volatile sectarian communities, Robinson bent to both nationalist and unionist extremists. Of Crossmaglen nationalists, he opined that they "are about the warmest lot I know". In Fermanagh, Robinson's justification was even more illuminating. Here he justified the inclusion of an area with a 3,000-strong Catholic majority because "there has been more money spent on armament and drilling here than in any part of the county and these Enniskillen and Lisnaskea protestant farmers are the most blood-thirsty set of ruffians I know". Fearing a contagion effect in Cavan and Monaghan, Robinson defended the exclusion of these districts as "there would be no peace or settlement along the whole border line if these people were left out". Bailey had applied the same logic to justify the inclusion of North Monaghan and the whole of Tyrone, the Protestant minorities of which he described as being "very strong and . . . better drilled and armed than in almost any part of the Province".
Despite all of his careful work and calculations, Robinson all but threw away all his careful cartography at the end of his letter to Birrell stating: "I expect you will find that the Ulstermen's minimum will be six entire counties in and no option . . . Personally, I agree about no option [putting the matter to a plebiscite]. It will indeed mean riots when this crucial issue is announced."

The Dougherty scheme
The third and final scheme to be submitted was that of Dougherty, the highest-ranking civil servant in Ireland. Dougherty first wrote on May 7th explaining that it would be "a difficult, if not impossible job to construct these pens" and that "the policy of exclusion, whatever plan may be adopted, bristles with difficulties and . . . I do not see how they are to be surmounted."
Dougherty's full memorandum was submitted on May 11th. It considered the merits and demerits of dividing the province by local government areas, parliamentary divisions, and full counties. Of these, Dougherty's preference was for the scheme which was ultimately adopted: county option. Dougherty's rationale focused largely on the administrative headache he foresaw in dealing with an otherwise excluded area in which local government boards, county councils, and existing parliamentary constituencies would be split across two jurisdictions.
All three schemes recommended that Ulster's second city, Derry, which had a 56 per cent Catholic majority, be put into the exclusion zone. Robinson argued that it was "impossible to keep the maiden city out of the parent county". Dougherty reminded his chief secretary that "the city of Derry has strong sentimental attractions for the Ulster Protestant, and it is the headquarters of the county administration" adding that "it is unlikely the 'Covenanters' will now consent to see the city excluded from Protestant Ulster."

Despite declaring for the whole-county option, Dougherty fudged his answer to the question of whether four or six counties should be excluded. His rationale for four-county exclusion was based on the fact that such a scheme would create "a tolerably compact area" but he seems on balance to have conceded that six counties would be the more realistic outcome due to the fact that "it is difficult to see how the Ulster Covenanters in the four included counties can abandon their brethren in Tyrone or Fermanagh"

[RadioGAAGAA]

Interestingly the newest education powerhouse, Estonia, do not stream children

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-50590581

Because the kids are self-motivated:

https://estonianworld.com/knowledge/pisa-study-estonian-pupils-are-the-best-in-europe/

According to the study, majority (77%) of Estonian students exhibit growth mindset – they believe they are capable of improving their intelligence and are willing to put effort into their own development in order to secure a better future. This is the highest among the OECD countries. 70% of students plan to attain higher education; the most popular professions are ICT specialist, doctor, CEO, architect and psychologist.

Our lot are anything but.

Its even more difficult when some parents don't give two flying fukks about their kid's education either.

[RadioGAAGAA]

In that scenario, regardless of political persuasion, if we were to have on offer a scenario where we could re-join Europe and have all the same benefits our neighbours in ROI have I think it would be very difficult to argue against.

I'm amazed by this view that EU citizens enjoy huge benefits that are the envy of everyone else. The EU is essentially a bloated bureaucratic middleman that levies taxes on member states and, in the case of both Ireland and the UK, pays out substantially less than they pay in.

You do understand the benefits of the common market?

Of course I do. But countries outside the EU tend to do ok too. The Swiss and Norwegians aren't exactly beating down the door to join.

Both of those countries have access (or as good as) to the common market.

[Rossfan]

Dont they have special deals and pay for that privilege?