Nurturing Unionist Stupidity

Posted on September 29, 2013by fitzjameshorse

I’m Reposting a Fitzjameshorse post here before he has a chance to change his mind. It’s a goodie. 

A few weeks ago, a taxi driver told me a story. One of his neighbours took off his shoes and socks and walked twelve miles on a cold night to a hospital…where he was detained as being a person at risk.
Thats sad of course…but the good news is that he won his “tribunal” and had his Disability Living Allowance restored to him.
The taxi driver thought there was a connexion..

Perhaps we only thought this kinda thing happened in fiction. After all Captain Edmund Blackadder tried to use that old Sudan trick…wear our underpants on your head, stick two pencils up your nostrils and say “Wibble”.

So Willie Frazer goes to court dressed as Abu Hamza, the Islamist preacher…the man with the eye patch and hook for a hand. His alleged point is that he is being treated worse than an Islamist extremist. The “good law” which he supports was not designed for a “Protestant from Norn Iron”. He is offended.
Perhaps he should have said “Wibble”.

He…and the broader “Civil Rights Camp” loyalists are of course an embarrassment to Unionism. Should Nationalists care? Well seemingly “liberal” unionists seem to think that we should care.
They suggest that Willie Frazer, in particular is a man who has suffered a lot and may be unstable and even “fragile”.
They want us to believe that the Fleggers …subject of much humour…are in fact untypical of Unionism and that they are at best a sideshow. Nothing to do with the great battle of ideas between Unionism and Nationalism.
This is of course nonsense. Unionism has never been shy about using the unacceptable face of extreme loyalism. The “liberals” are at heart no different. After all didnt one of the leading apologists for so-called liberal unionism use the vilest of words to describe the SDLP.
The Unionist stance that we should not judge Unionism by the standards of behaviour and discourse of the lowest element in unionism is bad enough…but to claim a bye ball…a pass for Frazer and his cohorts on the grounds of unproven “fragility” seems risible.
Certainly most Nationalists cant stop laughing at Unionism.
But rather like a football team playing its fiercest rival cant be expected to worry that the opposing left back has an injury problem and sportingly decide not to expose the weakness….then it is not for Nationalists to do the sporting thing and avoid attacking Unionism at its weakest point…Willie Frazer, Jamie Bryson and the rest of them.

I am not qualified to say whether any individual should be in Court or “up a tree in Purdysburn” (as the politically incorrect Belfast folks would say)…but nor is any liberal unionist qualified to say.
As Frazer is a very public advocate for Unionism and is not restrained from public statement, then he is fair game.
Liberal Unionism is not so much concerned with Frazers fragility but with the realisation that the underbelly of Unionism is exposed. And that mainstream Unionism is exposed.
Shrill cries from the apologists for “liberal” unionism to leave their Willie alone (in a manner of speaking) cuts no ice.
Rather like “liberals” in the American Republican Party complain that the media concentrate too much on extreme conservatives who are outspokenly Islamaphobic, homophobic, sexist and racist…its fair to say that excessive GOP tolerance of tea-party extremists …has had consequences.
Likewise Unionist tolerance of aspects of Loyalist Culture has consequences for Unionism and they should not be allowed to distance themselves from the Fleggers.

The Greeks would probably have a word for this. I see that several members of the quasi-fascist New Dawn Movement, inluding members of the Greek Parliament have been rounded up by the Greek police. A response to levels of violence and civil unrest there…seemingly organised by the Far Right.
Has there been a swoop on Far Right politicians in Norn Iron in recent months? Is David Ford the Alliance Minister for Justice planning one with Chief Constable Baggot?

Have we no credible response to street violence? Other than pussy-footing around with Far Right street thugs because they must be facilitated and made to feel “included” because they are so uncertain of their “identity”?
Meanwhile a woman is recovering from gunshot wounds in East Belfast. The newspapers hint that it is a “domestic” incident not unrelated to a previous relationship with a local thug.
To what levels do we really have to be dragged for the so called Common Good of the Peace Process?

Reservoir Prods

Hot off the press, twitter and social media in general having a field day with todays latest episode in court for Wee Willie and Jamie. Does Loyalism have no sense of what is actually happening here? If I was up on a traffic violation I have no doubt I’d be feeling the sharp end of a Judge’s tongue at least if I took the proverbial like this.

What’s up with the Census?

Guest post by Faha; 

Faha actually sent me this a few months ago. I have been working on expanding it to include the secondary school data but, hands up, it is taking forever and to be honest is very difficult to relate to the actual census figures. Following a polite e-mail reminder I thought it best to go ahead and publish his work as it stands. Many thanks to him and I should apologise for the procrastination.

In May, the census office released the file DC2117NI:Religion or Religion Brought Up In by Age which gives a breakdown of religious background by single  age groups in the 2011 census. Later in 2011, the annual school census was completed. It is now possible to compare the results of the 2011 school census with that of the 2011 census. What were the results?

The school census results for primary school age children were as follows:

Catholic        Protestant & Other Christian    Other          None         Total

78,941                60,658                   1,026          15,069        155,691

The 2011 Northern Ireland census was conducted 6 months earlier so the children were 6 months younger then. I used the age 6 to 11 age cohort and most of the age 5 cohort to match with the school census. The results are:

Catholic       Protestant & Other Christian     Other          None         Total

76,931                         62,871                  1,219           14,672       155,691

The discrepancy between the school census and the 2011 census is:

Catholic       Protestant & Other Christian     Other          None

+2,010                -2,213                               -193              +397

The school census is recording over 2,000 more Catholics and over 2,000 fewer Protestants than the 2011 census. Why the discrepancy?

Primary school attendance is compulsory so almost all primary school age children attend primary school and are recorded in the school census. The 2011 census, on the other hand, did not have any religious data for 60,000 people who responded to the census. There were an additional 158,000 people who did not return census forms for a total of 218,000 people for which no religion background data was available. This is 12% of the entire population. For those 155,691 children in primary school the 2011 census had no religious background information for over 18,000 of those students. The census office estimated what the religion background of those students was and added their estimate to the 138,000 primary school age children for which they had religion background data.

The school census had religious background for almost all primary school age students.  There were 397 excess None/Not Stated in the school census compared to the 2011 census so these would be the only students they did not have religious data on. There may also be a few students who do not attend primary school due to severe disability or illness but his would be a small number. The school census is missing religion background data for fewer than 1,000 primary school age children compared to 18,000 for the 2011 census. The school census has religion data for at least 17,000 of those 18,000 that the 2011 census does not have. The school census data is much more accurate since they have religion data for over 99% of primary school age children compared to only 88% for the 2011 census. Thus, the school census is more accurate and there are 2,000 more Catholics in the primary school age population than were recorded in the 2011 census.

The school census results for secondary school students are:

Catholic       Protestant & Other Christian     Other          None               Total

75,891             60,407                      650              9,799           146,747

I used the 12 to 16 age cohort and most of the age 17 cohort to match and the results of the 2011 census are:

Catholic       Protestant & Other Christian     Other          None               Total

72,285             62,403                       929               1,130           146,747

The discrepancy between the school census and the 2011 census is:

Catholic       Protestant & Other Christian     Other          None

+3,606                        -1,996                     -279            -1,331

As with the primary school census, the school census records more Catholics (3,606) and almost 2,000 fewer Protestants than the 2011 census. The school census also records 1,331 fewer students with no religion.   Unlike the primary school census, where school attendance is compulsory, some older students have dropped out of secondary school and would not be recorded in the school census.   The coverage of the secondary school census would only be approximately 94%. However, this is still higher than the 88% coverage for religion background data in the 2011 census.

Finally, this would be the results combining the primary school census, the secondary school census and the students in special schools.

Catholic       Protestant & Other Christian     Other          None           Total

156,781                    122,903                   1,701           25,605      306,990

For the 2011 census I used the religion data for the entire age 5 through 17 cohort and a small number from the age 18 cohort.

Catholic       Protestant & Other Christian     Other          None             Total

151,459                 127,174                     2,179           26,178        306,990

The discrepancy between the school census and the 2011 census is:

Catholic       Protestant & Other Christian     Other          None

+5,322                          -4,271                     -478            -573

The entire school census records 5,322 more Catholics and 4,271  fewer Protestants than the 2011 census.

What are the implications for the accuracy of the 2011 census? It is clear that in the school age population, the school census indicates that there was a systemic undercount of the Catholic population in school age children: i.e. it is present in all age cohorts. School age children have younger siblings who have not yet begun school as well as old siblings who have already finished schooling. They obviously also have parents and grandparents and other relatives. Since this is a systemic estimate error it affects other age groups also. There is a 2,000 undercount of Catholic primary school age children and those age cohorts comprise 9% of the entire population. Extrapolating to the entire population would result in a 22,000 undercount of the Catholic population in the 2011 census. If one uses the entire school census (primary, secondary and special school students) there is a Catholic undercount of 5,322 students and those age cohorts comprise 18% of the entire population. Extrapolating the entire school census undercount of 5,322 Catholics to the entire population would result in a 29,000 undercount of the Catholic population in the 2011 census. The 817,000 Catholics recorded in the 2011 census is not accurate and the school census indicates that the correct number is in the range of 840,000 to 846,000 which is approximately 46.5% of the entire population.

Who ya voting for next time?

Over at the “Super Soaraway Sluggerworld” site there have been a number of posts recently on the subject of the current state of the main parties. These have been generally heavy on opinion but light on facts and figures.

The only facts which actually matter regarding political parties are cold hard Votes so I’ve put some figures and graphs together looking at actual performance since 2003. I have only looked at Local Government, Assembly and Westminster elections as it would be a distortion to include EU or by-elections. I also felt a 10 year timeframe would be a good snapshot.

To place things in context it is important to be aware that voter turnouts have been dropping not just here but in most Western democracies for many years. In 2011 the voter turnout was just  54.5%, a decline of almost 8% from the previous Assembly election and down over 15% from the first election to the Assembly in 1998. Historically the North has had a comparitively high turnout but this is unquestionably dropping. Nevertheless, only real votes actually count.

I have deliberately only focussed on the main parties although I am aware of the fragmentation particularly within Unionism. All votes not going to the named parties below are included in the “other” values.

So lets have a look at the performances in numerical terms first:

Or in Graph format:So what can we see from these figures? DUP and SF both holding their votes very well, Alliance doing surprisingly well although with a very limited Belfast centred spread of voters, UUP continuing their decline and the SDLP also declining although at a slower rate. Below are the same results expressed as a percentage of the total vote:

There has been much discussion and speculation as to what is happening within the total voting blocks, lets have a look at the figures if we put the figures together for the primary unionist/ nationalist blocks:

Now things are getting interesting. We can see that what has actually happened is the following. Over the period the Nationalist parties have increased as a percentage of votes cast by 0.7%. The main Unionist parties have declined by 5.1%, Alliance is up by 4% and the rest by 0.4%.

Splitting this back into individual parties and the changes in actual votes and percentages over the period using the 2003 LG figures as a base makes very interesting reading also. Over this period the total valid votes cast dropped by 30,292:

It would appear that while the overall vote is dropping the effect upon the broadly Unionist vote is far greater than upon the Nationalist vote. Alliance appear to have done well but must be viewed in the context of their smaller numbers and limited spread. The “other” category is virtually unchanged which is surprising given the plethora of smaller, mostly unionist, parties emerging. The next round of elections is not until 2015 so, barring surprises such as a snap general election, we may have a while to wait for the next instalment.

I have more detailed figures should anyone have any queries. Have fun with the figures 😉

Silence says so much

12 years ago this happened:

Young kids were exposed to the worst sort of sectarian bigotry and the virulent underbelly of Loyalism was exposed to the world for what it is.

Since then clearly nothing has been learned within Loyalism but, more importantly, within the wider Unionist fraternity.

I am tempted, as a Nationalist and a Republican to gloat but I am left with an empty as well as angry feeling after the latest lunacy from that quarter.

Today 3 Schools were threatened. Pupils, parents and staff.

From the Irish News:

Now I expect nothing better from these lunatics but I am still waiting on a single comment from any Unionist politician on this. Even one.

Every single person I have spoken to including many of a unionist persuasion are appalled by this. I am certain the unionist inclined readers of this blog will be appalled by it.

(Clarification) I should add I mean that I am appalled by the silence of Politicians, not individual unionists

Why the silence?

Bertie Wooster versus Gorgeous George

Sammy McNally has kindly posted the below guest post:

I think it is fair to say that there are good arguments both for and against Western military intervention in Syria.

 I think it also fair to say that the obvious over-eagerness of Davey Cameron (taken with his previous attempts to effect regime change in Syria) undoubtedly contributed to the parliamentary rejection of his confused and watered down request for military involvement.

 The unfortunate Tory leader, like a bumbling Bertie Wooster in a Woodhousian farce, who was attempting to both garner support for military action and put off a decision on taking it until the following week(when parliament was back) – had seemingly recalled parliament for no good reason. Jeeves would not have approved.

 And Davey had to watch on as his ill-thought out and muddled strategy unravelled, as British concern for the fate of Syrian civilians, gave way to a much greater concern for what Cameron’s parliamentary defeat meant for the ‘special relationship’. Concerns that became increasingly hysterical (and amusing) with British fears that ‘best friend’ status might be bestowed on the awful French who remained keen on military involvement and were referred to as our ‘oldest ally’ by Secretary of State Kerry. (Peter Simpson, the experienced BBC reporter assured his audience in solemn tones that the Americans had chosen these cruel words to be deliberately hurtful).

 There, there.

 On this side of the Irish sea, as a former (and continuing) colony, we generally have serious reservations about British overseas military interventions (and not just because we have been on the receiving end on more than one occasion). And particularly so in this case, where the ethnic and religious divisions, the complexity of the politics in the region, the unreliability of Western intelligence agencies, the fallout from interventions in Iraq and Libya, the strength of the influence of Israel on Western foreign policy and the undesirability of the opposition in Syria – would probably outweigh the desirability of punishing the Syrian government for the use of chemical weapons – for most of the Irish public.

 There were many excellent parliamentary contributions last Thursday, including from some of Cameron’s own party from MPs who also opposed military involvement. But as ever, when it comes to matters of foreign policy and particularly in the middle east – the words of George Galloway are eagerly anticipated.

 And George didn’t disappoint – and as usual nailed the issue.

 Speaking of the Syrian governments alleged action, George observed.

 “Not that they are not bad enough to do it, Mr Speaker, the question is are they mad enough to do it,

 .. to launch a chemical weapons attack in Damascus on the very day that UN inspections team arrives in Damascus

 …and of course if he is that mad – how mad is going to be if we launch a blizzard of Tomahawk cruise missiles.”

 Gorgeous George, arguably the best parliamentary speaker since Churchill, was exiled from the Labour Party, for not swallowing Blair’s attempts to win over ‘middle England’ but somehow seemed to reflect the views of all of middle England – and the rest of Britain –not only much better than the discredited Blair who was calling for military action from the side lines – but also somewhat better than the befuddled Davey.

 George’s speech in full below.