BS: electing a new labour leader

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 07:15 PM

I'd tend to agree with you about Scottish independence being pretty certain. But the matter of timing is important. If we don't get a reformed UK voting system we're facing a pretty dire future down here, and the best hope of that is goverment backed by the Scots that can push through a reform that means we don't need Scottish help in defanging the Tories.

But if I was a Scot I'd probably want a breakaway tomorrow, and leave it to the English to reform themselves. But I really would rather not have a permanent Tory government, elected on a minority vote, on my southern border.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 08:01 PM

"The unionists demanded to remain in the union,"
We seem to have lost the fantasy pf people choosing to live where they wanted to - where on earth did that come from.
It doesn't matter what the Unionists wanted - they were in a tiny minority in the whole of Ireland so they would have had t intergrated into a united Ireland or leave.
Instead, the British decided to succumb to the will of a tiny minority and place them in charge of of the six counties subjecting Ireland to nearly a century of bloodshed and unrest.
The non-Catholics who remained in the South had no problem integrating into the new state -they have their own church, they take a full part in the running of Ireland - no persecution, no prejudice, no bigotry - they play a full part in the life of the Republic of Ireland, and always have.
Ireland is Ireland - one single country, one culture, one people - to divide it in the way it was led to persecution, ongoing bloodshed and unrest.
Partition was a political move supported by religious radicals.
The the Unionists should have either accepted the will of the majority or have gone elsewhere.
If an ethnic minority in Britain decided they did not wish to live under British rule and culture, what do you suggest - give them six counties and leave them to it
Please don't be stupid.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 02:39 AM

I wouldn't say independence is certain but I think it is looking more likely than it was prior to the referendum. Most people were predicting, and the initial polls were prediciting, a much bigger No vote than the outcome eventually showed. Even though it wasn't quite enough all the momentum was with Yes and the SNP and that momentum has continued since. Certainly for the party anyway. Who would have predicted a year ago that after a referendum defeat the SNP would get 50% of the vote in the Westminster election and win every seat bar 3 - and that they would now be 62% in the polls for the Holyrood election! I think also the idea of it is better to work with us lefties down south than leave idea has been pretty damaged too because of the general election campaign. The Tories ran an overtly anti-Scottish smear campaign and Labour were cowed by it totally failing to condemn the tone of the Tory campaign. So both parties tried to win votes in England by demonising the potential Nats in Westminster abd both parties plus the Lib Dems suffered in Scotland because of it. The Tory vote dropped despite the Labour and Lib Dem collapse. Dropped slightly only probably because they are basically at their rock bottom core vote anyway! So interesting times.

Corbyn is despite being around for a long time potentially a new face for Labour and yes the Nats would work with him at Westminster level but there is a lingering resentment and distrust among many in Scotland over the Labour general election tactics and there are two possible real clashes too. Corbyn in a recent speech said that any potential new referendum was a decision up to "the Scottish people, the Scottish parliament and the UK parliament". Not quite sure what he means by that but if he is suggesting Westminster would need to agree - thus giving a veto to the UK as a whole and denying self determination to the Scottish electorate - then he is heading for a clash with the Scottish gvt at some point. Secondly he can say he'll work with the SNP but I don't think everyone in England quite realizes just how much the Scottish Labour party and SNP are at loggerheads in Scotland. I can't imagine Kezia Dugdale looking forward to working with a party she clearly despises and I imagine Sturgeon would take delight in causing a wee bit mischief by openly working directly with Corbyn rather than what the SNP regard as the Branch Office of Labour in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 03:22 AM

Allen,

You are right in that the failure to contest the smear was a major Labour failing. Labour should have welcomed the suggestion that they work with the SNP to get rid of the tories, which was, and is, an overriding priority.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 03:30 AM

Jim, you are displaying a partizanship which I thought that we were over after Good Friday. Whatever happened, someone was going to have to live is a country whose values were very different from theirs, someone was going to have their rights denied. And there would have been a bloodbath had partition not taken place as Keith has said, and you really must give Keith the respect to think about what he writes, rather than just a knee jerk railing against it. Could it have been handled better? Probably. Would it have been better to hand over all of Ireland to the Republicans? Definitely not. Same with India, although Gandhi was much against it, the partition was almost certainly the least bad option in 1947. At least everyone had somewhere to go.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,Musket laughing
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:12 AM

We voted against independence.

The idea of the outcome making independence a done deal is delusional to say the least. I suppose if you took away the many families relying on income from their work at the military bases including Trident, the whole BP economy of Aberdeen and the financial institutions of the central belt, you might have just about swayed it the other way.

Except you'd be arguing how to distribute the bags of rice from flown in UN charter flights and NGO aid workers.

Anyway. Read the SNP stuff from the referendum properly. "Negotiate" is all over the NATO and Trident promises. They know Scotland is too strategically placed for NATO to lose it. They'd need the income too.

Still. I'd happily vote SNP other than their pipe dream. They are a liberal party whose slogan is Prosperity through Equality. Very laudable and the exact opposite of what some shallow fools think they stand for.

Labour? I'll worry about such things when and if we move back to England.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:25 AM

Instead, the British decided to succumb to the will of a tiny minority

What choice Jim?
That tiny minority were well armed and determined to fight against being subsumed into the new state.
The South could not fight them, and the British Army would not.
What choice?

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:31 AM

"And there would have been a bloodbath had partition not taken place as Keith has said"
There was a bloodbath immediately following the signing of the treaty and there as been a continuing bloodbath ever since - and will continue to be while the border remains.
What on earth is partonising about suggesting that no minority should be given the governance of six counties on the basis of their religion and that on that basis, those counties should continue to be part of another nation.
Simple exercise - put Britain in the same situation.
I don't for one minute an ultra-nationalist like Keith believes the guff he is putting up - excuses like Irish people were given the choice to move to the area they wished.
At the time of the signing of the treaty, Ireland was still reeling from the results of the Famine, yet it was forced to sign away the rights to the six richest, most fertile and most developed counties in order to appease a religious minority
"Would it have been better to hand over all of Ireland to the Republicans?"
The "Republicans" then were a different bread than the ones that followed, who were a direct result of the Catholic persecution which arose from the creation of an aggressive Protestant state.
It is often forgotten that 'The Troubles' of the seventies arose from the brutal putting down of peaceful marches demanding equal rights in the six counties, when the police directed banner-carrying men, women and children through howling mobs of stone-throwing Loyalists - that was the birth of terrorism in Northern Ireland - and it didn't take long for it to spread to mainland Britain.
The irony of all this is that, personally, far from being a nationalist, I regard national barriers as barriers to international co-operation - I am an 'Internationalist' if anything, but I have come to realise that while partition remains we will continue to count the body-bags.
"At least everyone had somewhere to go"
Now that's what I call patronising
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:35 AM

Should read "I don't believe for one minute an ultra-nationalist like Keith...."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:11 AM

McGrath of Harlow. "Just put my vote in. Went for Angela Eagle,"

Angela Eagle is my MP and she impresses not in the least, either as a constituency MP or as a committed socialist.

Thereby hangs the trouble, and the reason why Jeremy Corbyn is storming ahead. The MPs who should be representing the interests of ordinary people just aren't there.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 07:57 AM

Jim, I am not an "ultra-nationalist" or anything else.

I did not make "excuses like Irish people were given the choice to move to the area they wished."
You misunderstood me.
I was saying that the borders were chosen to leave as many as possible on the correct side.

In what sense was Ireland "still reeling from the results of the Famine?"

Have you an answer to the previous question I put Jim?
What choice?
That "tiny minority" were battle hardened, well armed and determined to fight against being subsumed into the new state.
The South could not fight them, and the British Army would not.
What choice?

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 09:05 AM

Jim, there is universal franchise in Northern Ireland. Nobody is given the right to govern because of their religion.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 09:06 AM

"In what sense was Ireland "still reeling from the results of the Famine?""
Ladlordism had left huge numbers of tenants landless, and in most cases, homeless
The land disturbances, due to the fact that the break-up of the old landed estates, were largely benefiting the already wealthy farmers, the poorer ones being more or less ignored, officially ended in 1909, but continued much later in the impoverished west.
Rural Ireland was in a mess under British rule as it had served as "England's Breadbasket" and that is how the rural economy had been developed.
Ireland also inherited from British rule the problems of unemployment, emigration, uneven geographical development and lack of a native industrial base.
Industrial developed in the Northern Counties which Britain retained as part of the United Kingdom - that was the legacy of Empire as it was in all the former colonies.
"What choice?"
I've given the choice - are you suggesting that any country should submit to religion-driven bullies?
The treaty was signed under the threat of, should it be refused, Britain would invade.
If Lloyd George, who made the threat, was prepared to send troops to secure a treaty, then he should have been prepared to send troops to defend any treaty that was signed.
The treaty was signed to favour a Loyalist minority because the minority supported British policy.
Britain sent in armed thugs in the form of the Auxiliaries and the Black and Tans, to ascertain that they got the best deal in whatever treaty was signed
The signing of the enforced treaty has been the cause of the spilling of more blood that would ever have been shed if the Loyalists had taken up arms - and that blood is still being split nearly a century later
The latest concern in the North is the massive drain on the British taxpayer in order to police the on-going sectarian marches.
You are an ultra-nationalist, and well known to be one - and I didn't misunderstand you, whatever you might adapt it to since you said it, you wrote "The policy was to place as many people as possible on the side they would choose."
Fairly unequivocal.
Unless you have anything new to add, I think we're done here.
The days of Empire are over - they were on their last legs when the treaty was signed, yet Britain retained six counties, which it still holds.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 09:32 AM

You misunderstood me.
I was saying that the borders were chosen to leave as many as possible on the correct side.
I am sorry if my wording was ambiguous but I had already stated, "The boundaries were deliberately chosen to include as many unionists as possible within the union, and to allow as many nationalists as possible to be outside the union."

I do not accept your version of that history.
If it was true, would hundreds of thousands of young Irishmen, all volunteers, have fought for Britain?
Compare that to the number of rebels.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 09:53 AM

From "History Ireland" by Michael Laffan, head of the School of History in University College Dublin.
No mention of any invasion threat.

it was agreed that a boundary commission would decide the border between the two parts of Ireland. It is significant that the treaty split centred on questions of sovereignty and the oath of fidelity ('allegiance') to the king rather than on the question of partition. Few Dáil deputies discussed the matter. Either they felt that partition was already an established fact and that nothing could be done, or they assumed that the boundary commission clause would take care of the question. Some people were later embarrassed by this omission and tried to rewrite the record.


The treaty was supported by narrow majorities in the Irish cabinet and the Dáil, and in January 1922 Collins formed a provisional government. De Valera went into opposition, but the strongest opposition to the treaty came not from politicians but from elements in the IRA. Some soldiers were unwilling to accept civilian authority. Despite elections in June 1922, which revealed the popularity of the treaty (78 per cent of the first-preference votes were for candidates who supported it), civil war broke out soon afterwards.


The resulting struggle degenerated into a bloodier and more savage conflict than the recent war against the British, and both sides resorted to atrocities. But there was no swing of opinion against the government as had happened after 1916 and in 1919–21, and ultimately the republicans laid down their arms.


The civil war also ended southern concern with Northern Ireland and it brought to an end Collins's attempts to destabilise Craig's government in Belfast.


The civil war was only one factor among several that allowed time to elapse before the boundary commission was established, and not until late 1925 was it ready to complete its report. The chairman (South African jurist Richard Feetham, who was appointed by the British government) had the casting vote, and predictably he took a conservative and narrowly legal view of the changes that might be made to the border. Despite the hopes of the Irish delegation in the treaty negotiations, and despite the fact that one third of the population of Northern Ireland wished to join the Free State, the proposed amendments were minimal. To the shock of nationalists, it was even suggested that the Free State should hand over some of its territory. Ultimately the three governments decided that the border between North and South would remain unchanged.
http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/the-emergence-of-the-two-irelands-1912-25/

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 10:02 AM

"...would hundreds of thousands of young Irishmen, all volunteers, have fought for Britain"

To suggest that that means they accepted Partition is an oversimplification, bordering on libel. It'd make my father spin in his grave. He fought as a Republican in the Civil War, and yet when the World War came, he joined the British Army. "I always believed in standing up for the rights of small countries, even my own" was the reason he gave when he was asked why. And he certainly came anywhere near accepting the partition of Ireland as justified.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 10:09 AM

But I really think it would be better not to continue with this issue in this thread about the labour leadership election. That's still a lot happening around that, and more to come. Start another thread maybe to talk about Partition.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 10:59 AM

"No mention of any invasion threat."
You've been given this information before - Lloyd George's threat was as unequivocal as was your statement about Irish people being given the opportunity to choose where to live (only, more grounded in fact.)
If you think I'm going to enter into another farce with you presenting historians you have scooped up off the net and don't have the interest to have read, you really are out of your mind.
Below is the actual quote from Lloyd George making that threat.
That he was capable of carrying it out was obvious by his readiness to send in armed thugs prior to the treaty negotiations.
"Start another thread maybe to talk about Partition."
I have no intention of doing so, nor do I have any intention of cluttering up this discussion to be part of allowing Keith to embark on yet another flight of fantasy - I'm done - my apologies Mac
Jim Carroll
   

"We have gone through this document and met you fairly. ' said Lloyd George when he returned. "Are you now prepared to stand by this Agreement whichever choice Ulster makes? " Griffith agreed. But his was a lone voice.
Lloyd George exerted pressure: "Is it a bargain between Sinn Fein and the British Government? I have to communicate with Sir James Craig tonight. Here are the alternative letters which I have prepared, one enclosing the Articles of Agreement reached by His Majesty's Government and yourselves, the other telling Sir James Craig that the Sinn Fein representatives refuse allegiance and refuse to come within the Empire, and that I have therefore no proposals to make to him. If I send this letter it is war—and war within three days. Which of the two letters am I to send? That is the question you have to decide. "

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 11:00 AM

Thanks Kevin.
My reference to the volunteering in WW1 was not about acceptance of partition, but to contrast with Jim's description of the prevailing view and of Ireland "still reeling from the famine."

I do not know why Jim raised the issue here, and he has said he has finished now.

An eminent historian writing in a prestigious Irish history journal refutes Jim's view of the partition anyway, so I am done too.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 11:02 AM

Jim, you have presented all that stuff before.
Teribus showed it was not genuine.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 11:05 AM

I'd rather hear the candidates give their views on running the economy, priorities for inward investment and the social programme they envisage.

Their view on Cromwell, Lloyd George, Paisley or Sands is something most voters would sit cross legged at the feet of Keith's sage historians to know about. Then realise it has fuck all to do with c21 government.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 11:46 AM

"Teribus showed it was not genuine."
Piss off Keith - it's over - again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 11:52 AM

"Teribus showed it was not genuine."
NOW WILL YOU PISS OFF?
"In the course of the negotiations Griffith, and then the other delegates, were persuaded to accept the
proposal for a Boundary Commission to address the unity issue. Under threat of war – and with the last
minute concession of fiscal autonomy – the delegates signed the Articles of Agreement on 6 December,
which proposed the establishment of an Irish Free State as a self-governing dominion within the British
Commonwealth."

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 12:05 PM

Well it was in World War Two my father fought in the British Army, years after his active IRA times, but the same would have been true 20 years earlier. For example, Tom Barry, who commanded the Third Cork Brigade of the IRA, and wrote a famous book called Guerrilla Day in Ireland, was a sergeant in the British Army in Mesopotamia during the war. (Southern Iraq, that would be. Not much changes, apart from the names of the countries) His army training came in handy for fighting the British Army later.

And I wasn't particularly suggesting you started up an Irish history thread, Jim, or Keith for that matter. But there's bound to be one up and running before long, so that would perhaps be a better place to discuss these matters.
..........
But getting back to domestic politics. I was looking just now at an interview Jeremy Corbyn gave with the alternative media group novara media. He is remarkably leve-headed and calm, and impressive in a way that I don't think I can remember another politician iin a long time. It's on YouTube.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 12:10 PM

No Jim.
Your source lacks the prestige of History Ireland and is not written by any historian, but read your quote.
They were agreeing to a Boundary Commission to consider the boundaries, not to any actual boundaries.
The agreement was subsequently refuted anyway, threat or no threat.

In the course of the negotiations Griffith, and then the other delegates, were persuaded to accept the
proposal for a Boundary Commission to address the unity issue. Under threat of war – and with the last
minute concession of fiscal autonomy – the delegates signed the Articles of Agreement on 6 December,
which proposed the establishment of an Irish Free State as a self-governing dominion within the British
Commonwealth.
Subsequently, the Cabinet (on 10 December) and, then, the Dáil itself (on 7 January, 1922) split on the
issue (the Oath of Allegiance being particularly contentious) and by June, 1922, armed conflict had
resumed as the armed forces of the two sides fought in the Civil War.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 12:30 PM

So far you have had at four sources saying the same thing Keith
"But there's bound to be one up and running before long, so that would perhaps be a better place to discuss these matters."
Thanks for clarifying your point Mac
I have no intention of discussing this or anything further with this obsessive (who doesn't read and isn't interested)
I've made my point and am happy to have forced him to scurry behind his "real historians" again - a long-running joke, or what
I really am not going to nause this up any more than I already have
Job done - yet another farce
Seems Ciorbyn is making all the running - good news, even if it only manages to scare the horses.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 12:44 PM

"The non-Catholics who remained in the South had no problem integrating into the new state -they have their own church, they take a full part in the running of Ireland - no persecution, no prejudice, no bigotry - they play a full part in the life of the Republic of Ireland, and always have."

Surely there was also though a dramatic fall in the Protestant population in the Republic through the 20thC which only started recovering in recent times? It is hard to portray a population group as happily settled and integrated when they near disappeared!

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 01:09 PM

"Surely there was also though a dramatic fall in the Protestant population in the Republic through the 20thC which only started recovering in recent times?"
No it wasn't - the Protestants in the South have never suffered persecution or discrimination - there are no recorded examples of them having done so - unless you can come up with some.
Considering the decades of persecution undergone by the Catholics in the North, it is understandable that you find that fact. many of the English in the Big Houses (most of them absentee landlords, went home, but that is all.
The pressure against mixed denomination marriages were common before ad after the Treaty, but that was the church - nothing to do with the pele or the politicians - but that pressure was part of Six Counties life from the Protestant church (and from the local communities)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 01:21 PM

' no recorded examples'

and who pray, would have recorded these examples?

it wasn't the way i heard it.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 01:24 PM

"it wasn't the way i heard it."
Then e4ducate us Al
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 02:17 PM

I never suggested there was outright persecution but there has to be some explanation for the % falling by about 70% at one point. Everything obviously couldn't have been as rosy as being suggested. Through pressure one way or another within the country people either left or stopped being Protestant. The pressure on children of mixed marriages to be brought up as Catholics being one example. I was just watching a documentary the other day where both Bob Geldof and Sinead O'Connor were bemoaning the overbearing presence of the Catholic church in the Ireland of their youth. I take it non Catholics could well have felt the same. I wouldn't class good and smooth integration as being the same as a group or community being drastically reduced in size. Surely you don't need to become Catholic to integrate with Catholics? Integratation here in the Scottish Borders is real enough. No one cares if you are a Catholic or Protestant! Unlike some other parts of Scotland....

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 03:03 PM

So far you have had at four sources saying the same thing Keith

No I have not.
Just that piece written by an employee of something called "Professional Development Service For Teachers"!!
That piece does not support your claims anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 03:08 PM

"Everything obviously couldn't have been as rosy as being suggested. "
Then you'll have examples to the contrary?]"The pressure on children of mixed marriages to be brought up as Catholics being one example."
That's the church and it happens throughout Catholicism - religious interference which applies to all religions, not just Protestants.
It happens in other religions, of course - Muslims, Jews.....
On the other hand, prejudice against Catholics immediately became the order of the day in the six counties and was written into the laws there.
One of the first acts of the new government there was to introduce a law linking the right to vote with property ownership, immediately restricting the rights of large numbers of Catholics to vote - other forms of gerrymandering went on (which brought this subject on to this thread when somebody claimed (cant remember who!!) that gerrymandering did not take place.
"Under successive unionist Prime Ministers from Sir James Craig (later Lord Craigavon) onwards, the unionist establishment practised what is generally considered a policy of discrimination against the nationalist/Catholic minority.
This pattern was firmly established in the case of local government,[12] where gerrymandered ward boundaries rigged local government elections to ensure unionist control of some local councils with nationalist majorities. In a number of cases, most prominently those of the Corporation of (Derry), Londonderry, Omagh Urban District, and Fermanagh County Council, ward boundaries were drawn to place as many Catholics as possible into wards with overwhelming nationalist majorities while other wards were created where unionists had small but secure majorities, maximising unionist representation.
Voting arrangements which gave commercial companies multiple votes according to size, and which restricted the personal franchise to property owners, primary tenants and their spouses (which were ended in England in the 1940s) continued in Northern Ireland until 1969,[13] became increasingly resented. Disputes over local government gerrymandering were at the heart of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.[14]"
Discrimination also too place in other essential areas of existence such as housing and employment
Compared to what was happening in the North, Protestants in the south got off lightly in terms of prejudice.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 03:17 PM

Did the numbers of Catholics in the North crash like those of Southern Protestants, or did they rise Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 03:36 PM

BBC 2012.
The census reveals 48% of the resident population are either Protestant or brought up Protestant, a drop of 5% from the 2001 census.

45% of the resident population are either Catholic or brought up Catholic, an increase of 1%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20673534

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 03:49 PM

over the longer period from 1911 to 1961 the process of religious realignment had continued with the Protestant populations in areas south of the border continuing to fall. This was not balanced by a discernable decline in the Catholic proportions north of the border, on the contrary over this period the Catholic population in the greater Belfast area, specifically in a transect west of the city, increased considerably.
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/troubledgeogs/chap7.htm

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:05 PM

You have the documented facts of built in prejudice against Catholics in the six counties - how about getting one of your historians to sort out them (just as they have sorted out the use of force in getting the treaty signed!!!!)
Both your links indicate a decline in religious practice in general - not prejudice
The same is happening in Catholicism since clerical about hit the fan - though it' happened much more slowly as Catholics tended to be more devout and more likely to support the church (up to now)
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:19 PM

May I ask of 'The Jim 'n' Keith Eternal Comedy Revue' what relevance, if any, do the events in Ireland in the 19th and 20th centuries have to the current election process for a new leader of the Labour Party?

None, as far as I'm able to determine.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:35 PM

Maybe it would be best to change the thread title to "Irish partition - the thread formerly known as 'electing a new labour leader'..." Or close it perhaps, so that two new threads could spring up to replace it. The Mudcat as hydra.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 06:26 PM

This employee of The Professional Development Srrvice for teachers, Keith. They wouldn't happen to be eminent historians perchance?

Perhaps Jim knows something you haven't factored into your dismissal?

😴

There again...

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 06:35 PM

i can't recollect how i know.its a bit like the business with the thieving eastern europeans that got me called a racist. i just forget stuff. i support no faction in either of these altercations. but i know what i know.

i know you've got that bit of history somewhat wrong Jim.

i will endeavour to sort through my brain to come up with the conclusive proof!

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 01:54 AM

Remind me again who Jeremy Corbyn is and why we were once interested in him?

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 02:13 AM

Some of us are; and Andy and Yvette and even Liz. But unfortunately Mudcat is sometimes reminiscent of trying to hold a conversation in a pub while a heavy metal tribute band is playing.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 03:03 AM

"i know you've got that bit of history somewhat wrong Jim."
Then you should be able to put me right Al - so far your offering unsubstantiated allusion
"have to the current election process for a new leader of the Labour Party?"
It came to this thread when the subject of gerrymandering electoral boundries was defended ("i never happened in Britain"), somebody claimed, and is still claiming.
One of the things Corbyn has been accused of by the sewer press in that he supports Gerry Adams and Irish terrorism, which he doesn't.   
You are right, of course - this subject has no place here, beyond that, but Keith is always good for a bit of light relief, and any opportunity to let him strut his stuff is always good for future reference.
I would be irresposible to overdo this, so let's not lads, waddya say?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 03:18 AM

I think your memory is somewhat selective, Al. You really need to concentrate on substantiated facts, rather than a vague feeling that you know something, if you hope to convince anyone of anything. The incident you refer to as 'thieving east Europeans' was about you saying that crime increases in areas of high east European immigration whereas the fact is that official statistics show that the reverse is true. I was happy to let it lie but seeing as you have brought it up I think it only fair that the facts of the matter are known.

Now, back to the Keith and Jim show...

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:03 AM

"Now, back to the Keith and Jim show..."
Tsk, tsk Dave.
Eastern "thieving Europeans" - what do they have to do with Jeremy Corbyn? - you'll be accused of being part of the " Keith and Jim show" next!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:09 AM

Guest,
This employee of The Professional Development Srrvice for teachers, Keith. They wouldn't happen to be eminent historians perchance?

No Guest.
Historians do not write anonymously and do not preface their work with,
"Note: Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the historical data contained herein.
Any inadvertent errors are regretted."

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:14 AM

no i recollect what i said - Dave -its you whats getting euthymol syndrome.   i said i saw some eastern europeans looting a quid shop in Boston , one owned by an old school friend, who could do nowt about it and thought informint the police was pointless. i said i couldn't remember from five years earlier how i knew they were eastern european. but i knew they were. you said i was a racist, i have never pretended a knowledge of what populations of eastern ruropeans get up to in the general way of things.

i really don't know how i know Jim. i'm puzzled myself. but my Grandad was Irish and a member of the British army - though not serving in Ireland. My family were Dubliners. Catholics.

i suppose its common sense. you have to remember that a lot of the families working for the castle would have been protestant, and once the English army had been chucked out, they would hardly have been flavour of the month. i'm sorry - i'm groping round in my memory for stories told me when iwas akid.

today i bought my wife the same necklace for our anniversary that i bought her last year. strike all i have to say from the record as the ravings of 'one whose evidence cannot be trusted'.

as for the labour party... i don't like the look of any of them. they have my vote - but not my confidence. they're just better than the other lot.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:25 AM

How well have Labour dealt with this leadership issue?
It is a shambles, and does not inspire confidence.

Subject: RE: BS: electing a new labour leader
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:37 AM

"as for the labour party... i don't like the look of any of them. they have my vote - but not my confidence. they're just better than the other lot."

Hmmm! I suspect that, for many years now, that attitude has been part of the problem. My perception is that, since Blair, they've been only slightly better than the other lot and their (often slavish and thoughtless) supporters have let them get away with it. I would like to advance the hypothesis that there are a lot of similarities between the Labour Party and the Catholic Church (I suspect that it's no coincidence that in Labour's northern strongholds there are often large Catholic populations). Voting Labour often seems to me to be a 'faith thing' rather than a rational decision. I wouldn't be surprised that if Labour politicians were found guilty of buggering choir boys, people would still vote for them!