|
|
Post by therealriga on Feb 25, 2019 19:09:27 GMT
Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the last election to the old Stormont parliament. Watching the BBC's coverage of it
brings home what a different era it was, with hugely unbalanced constituencies and 7 seats of 52 uncontested.
Politically, Prime Minister O'Neill's gamble failed and the end result would be a quarter century of violence. His Unionist party was hopelessly split, he nearly lost his own seat to Ian Paisley and the various pro-O'Neill and anti-O'Neill factions eventually morphed into splinter parties like Vanguard and the UPNI, while Paisley's near miss gave him the momentum to set up the DUP a few years later. For both the Nationalist party and the NI Labour Party (NILP) it was definitely the beginning of the end. The former didn't decline too much, but the loss of the leader's seat to John Hume proved symbolic, as Hume became one of the founders of the SDLP, who displaced the Nationalists a few years later. For NILP, it was a total disaster, shedding over half their vote and their leader lost his seat. While this was compensated by a gain in Belfast Falls, the winner there, Paddy Devlin, moved to the SDLP a year later and most of NILP's catholic support followed.
|
|
|
|
Post by uhurasmazda on Feb 26, 2019 22:05:35 GMT
That's an incredible find. A friend of mine made this election map series a few years ago:  |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Feb 26, 2019 22:26:07 GMT
That's an incredible find. Great maps and comparison is helped by the fact that, in most places, boundaries were unchanged for over 40 years. We'd need quite a few postponements by the Boundary Commission for that to happen today. Of course, it made for huge disparities in electorates. South Antrim had grown to over 32,000 by the time of the parliament's abolition, while Belfast Central had dropped to near 2,500. When they divided Belfast into 51 wards in 1972, they actually formed a Central ward based on the 5 polling districts which made up the former Stormont constituency and still had to add 2 polling districts to bring it up to size. It had still fallen to 1,250 voters by the early 1980s and they largely merged it with the New Lodge ward. The latter ward, now one of 60 in Belfast, therefore contains the whole of 1 Stormont constituency (Dock) and 75% of another (Central) which gives you an idea of demographic change. |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Feb 26, 2019 23:03:32 GMT
Unionism at it's horrifying and disenfranchising finest.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Feb 27, 2019 11:41:54 GMT
Unionism at it's horrifying and disenfranchising finest. True. Watching the programme brought it home to me that, by 1969, it was far too late for any compromise or internal reform. O'Neill needed catholics to back his limited reform plans and there was too much bad feeling and distrust towards the UUP establishment by that time for that to happen. On the flip side, the IRA border campaign and the strength of the catholic church in a pre-secular Ireland was too strong for unionists to warm to any idea of compromise there. The only way I can see things might have changed would have been Westminster stepping in at least a decade earlier. On the psephological side, it always interested me why they had no comprehensive boundary reform** for over 40 years after the late 1920s. It can't be explained by a desire by unionists to retain control since the three smallest constituencies by the time of the 1969 election (Belfast Central, Belfast Dock and South Fermanagh) were all nationalist-held. A boundary reform, at a minimum, would have merged the two small Belfast seats (eliminating a nationalist) and cut one from Fermanagh (eliminating a unionist.) The 2 new seats, likely in the Belfast suburbs, would have been unionist-held. Surely there must have been some grumbling by UUP MPs representing oversized seats? (**there was a limited one in 1968, which abolished the non-territorial Queens University seat and established 4 territorial constituencies, but that only affected 7 seats.) |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 27, 2019 12:12:37 GMT
Unionism at it's horrifying and disenfranchising finest. True. Watching the programme brought it home to me that, by 1969, it was far too late for any compromise or internal reform. O'Neill needed catholics to back his limited reform plans and there was too much bad feeling and distrust towards the UUP establishment by that time for that to happen. On the flip side, the IRA border campaign and the strength of the catholic church in a pre-secular Ireland was too strong for unionists to warm to any idea of compromise there. The only way I can see things might have changed would have been Westminster stepping in at least a decade earlier Wilson was certainly asked to intervene a few times after he became PM in 1964. But by then the Westminster mindset that NI was a separate backwater that "did its own thing" was deeply rooted, and it says it all that it took three years of full scale violence culminating in Bloody Sunday for direct rule to be imposed. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 27, 2019 13:42:45 GMT
It can't be explained by a desire by unionists to retain control since the three smallest constituencies by the time of the 1969 election (Belfast Central, Belfast Dock and South Fermanagh) were all nationalist-held. Neither Dock nor Central was orthodox Nationalist held though. Dock was the most volatile seat in the province and didn't re-elect the same party as the previous election at any time until 1969 (until the mid 1960s it alternate between the UUP and first the Northern Ireland Labour Party then the Irish Labour Party; then Gerry Fitt defect to Republican Labour and held it as such at two elections in a row before defecting to the SDLP but the abolition of Stormont prevented the seat returning to its usual form). Central was Nationalist held until 1946 then held by Frank Hanna from 1946 until his retirement in 1965 under a variety of "Labour" groups and labels. It was gained unopposed by the National Democratic Party in 1965 then by Republican Labour in 1969. If anything, surely these seats contributed to turmoil amongst both nationalists and labour. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Feb 27, 2019 16:00:17 GMT
It can't be explained by a desire by unionists to retain control since the three smallest constituencies by the time of the 1969 election (Belfast Central, Belfast Dock and South Fermanagh) were all nationalist-held. Neither Dock nor Central was orthodox Nationalist held though. Dock was the most volatile seat in the province and didn't re-elect the same party as the previous election at any time until 1969 (until the mid 1960s it alternate between the UUP and first the Northern Ireland Labour Party then the Irish Labour Party; then Gerry Fitt defect to Republican Labour and held it as such at two elections in a row before defecting to the SDLP but the abolition of Stormont prevented the seat returning to its usual form). Central was Nationalist held until 1946 then held by Frank Hanna from 1946 until his retirement in 1965 under a variety of "Labour" groups and labels. It was gained unopposed by the National Democratic Party in 1965 then by Republican Labour in 1969. If anything, surely these seats contributed to turmoil amongst both nationalists and labour. Interesting idea, but that in-fighting would have continued regardless of cutting a nationalist seat. Unionists were never a player in Central and redevelopment of the docks area meant that Dock was lost to the unionists by the 1960s. The residential areas of mixed streets around the docks were demolished in 1970 and residents resettled: catholics to the New Lodge and protestants to the Shore Road and Newtownabbey. In an alternate timeline where the parliament continued, Fitt would have won easily in 1973. The next election would have been more interesting. The eastern section of the seat was strong Official IRA territory and by 1977, they'd have organised (as Republican Clubs, later Workers' Party) behind Seamus Lynch, their northern chairman, to put in a strong challenge. 1981 would have been affected by the hunger strike and by then you'd have had Lynch versus Fitt versus, most likely, Fergus O'Hare of People's Democracy, with the latter very likely to win. |
|
obsie
Non-Aligned
Posts: 861 
|
Post by obsie on Mar 1, 2019 0:00:11 GMT
On the psephological side, it always interested me why they had no comprehensive boundary reform** for over 40 years after the late 1920s. It can't be explained by a desire by unionists to retain control since the three smallest constituencies by the time of the 1969 election (Belfast Central, Belfast Dock and South Fermanagh) were all nationalist-held. A boundary reform, at a minimum, would have merged the two small Belfast seats (eliminating a nationalist) and cut one from Fermanagh (eliminating a unionist.) The 2 new seats, likely in the Belfast suburbs, would have been unionist-held. Surely there must have been some grumbling by UUP MPs representing oversized seats? (**there was a limited one in 1968, which abolished the non-territorial Queens University seat and established 4 territorial constituencies, but that only affected 7 seats.) At a guess, it would have run the risk of upsetting too many apple-carts west of the Bann. Given practice in GB, it would have required a boundary commission with a set of public guidelines and many of the more creative efforts of Dawson Bates might have been hard to justify:  I don't think there was a single rural district that was not split under those boundaries and it might have been difficult to publicly justify, say, putting the Glenelly valley into Mid Tyrone with which it has few road links rather than into North Tyrone, or putting Keady in with Crossmaglen rather than Armagh, or the split of the Magherafelt Rural District, at least while keeping a straight face. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,759
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Mar 1, 2019 2:09:17 GMT
On the psephological side, it always interested me why they had no comprehensive boundary reform** for over 40 years after the late 1920s. .... At a guess, it would have run the risk of upsetting too many apple-carts west of the Bann. Given practice in GB, it would have required a boundary commission with a set of public guidelines and many of the more creative efforts of Dawson Bates might have been hard to justify: There's also the issue that 15 years later, at around about the normal time to do a review, we were in the middle of a bit of unpleasantness with the Germans. GB only managed a small bit of tidying up in 1948, we only got properly into regular reviews in 1955? |
|
obsie
Non-Aligned
Posts: 861
|
Post by obsie on Mar 1, 2019 2:19:20 GMT
At a guess, it would have run the risk of upsetting too many apple-carts west of the Bann. Given practice in GB, it would have required a boundary commission with a set of public guidelines and many of the more creative efforts of Dawson Bates might have been hard to justify: There's also the issue that 15 years later, at around about the normal time to do a review, we were in the middle of a bit of unpleasantness with the Germans. GB only managed a small bit of tidying up in 1948, we only got properly into regular reviews in 1955? I'm not sure that the war had very much to do with it, and there was no tradition of periodical reviews at the time in GB - previous reviews had coincided with extensions of the franchise (1885, 1918). Further on into the 1950s, however, might have produced a boundary revision in a normal polity. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Mar 6, 2019 16:55:09 GMT
At a guess, it would have run the risk of upsetting too many apple-carts west of the Bann. Given practice in GB, it would have required a boundary commission with a set of public guidelines and many of the more creative efforts of Dawson Bates might have been hard to justify: I don't think there was a single rural district that was not split under those boundaries and it might have been difficult to publicly justify, say, putting the Glenelly valley into Mid Tyrone with which it has few road links rather than into North Tyrone, or putting Keady in with Crossmaglen rather than Armagh, or the split of the Magherafelt Rural District, at least while keeping a straight face. Great map, where did you find it? I'm assuming that it came from a nationalist source, due to the use of "6 counties" and "Derry." I wonder what the motivation behind those boundaries was, anyway? There doesn't seem to have been a concerted attempt at gerrymandering (which wasn't necessary in any case) but some of the boundaries don't make a lot of sense either then or now. In Belfast, I remember reading that they were drawn to have as many of them as possible stretching to the edge of the city to cover future suburban expansion, and that looks plausible since at least 12 of 16 manage to reach the boundary with another council. Some of the names always bothered me as well. Why have Lisnaskea, rather than East Fermanagh, especially when numerous larger towns weren't mentioned in constituency titles? Conversely, the County Armagh ones should have been named after towns. Having 2 in the middle of the county and calling one Mid-Armagh and the other Central Armagh is just awful. Lurgan, Portadown and Armagh were all large enough population centres and would have done just fine. |
|
obsie
Non-Aligned
Posts: 861
|
Post by obsie on Mar 6, 2019 17:28:08 GMT
At a guess, it would have run the risk of upsetting too many apple-carts west of the Bann. Given practice in GB, it would have required a boundary commission with a set of public guidelines and many of the more creative efforts of Dawson Bates might have been hard to justify: I don't think there was a single rural district that was not split under those boundaries and it might have been difficult to publicly justify, say, putting the Glenelly valley into Mid Tyrone with which it has few road links rather than into North Tyrone, or putting Keady in with Crossmaglen rather than Armagh, or the split of the Magherafelt Rural District, at least while keeping a straight face. Great map, where did you find it? I'm assuming that it came from a nationalist source, due to the use of "6 counties" and "Derry." I wonder what the motivation behind those boundaries was, anyway? There doesn't seem to have been a concerted attempt at gerrymandering (which wasn't necessary in any case) but some of the boundaries don't make a lot of sense either then or now. In Belfast, I remember reading that they were drawn to have as many of them as possible stretching to the edge of the city to cover future suburban expansion, and that looks plausible since at least 12 of 16 manage to reach the boundary with another council. Some of the names always bothered me as well. Why have Lisnaskea, rather than East Fermanagh, especially when numerous larger towns weren't mentioned in constituency titles? Conversely, the County Armagh ones should have been named after towns. Having 2 in the middle of the county and calling one Mid-Armagh and the other Central Armagh is just awful. Lurgan, Portadown and Armagh were all large enough population centres and would have done just fine. Believe it or not, it came from the News Letter, albeit in 1929, when a lot of the terminological fetishes were either too new to be consistently applied or hadn't developed yet. (If you ever check out the 1901 and 1911 censuses on the National Archives website, you'll find plenty of "County Derrys" and even some "County Londonderrys" from unexpected quarters when asked their place of birth.)
The obvious solutions in Armagh and arguably in Fermanagh when you were going with three seats there were east/west approaches, with seats based on Armagh city and Keady and one based on Portadown/Tandragee/Richhill in Armagh, and a seat around Upper Lough Erne (Lisnaskea/Newtownbutler), the middle Erne (Enniskillen and points east), and one based on Irvinestown and Belleek stretching down to Florencecourt and Belcoo. But while it wouldn't have made a difference to overall Unionist control, it would have discommoded those on the "frontier". (In particular, remember whose family seat Lisnaskea was.)
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Mar 6, 2019 17:48:41 GMT
|
|
obsie
Non-Aligned
Posts: 861
|
Post by obsie on Mar 6, 2019 20:18:14 GMT
I really wouldn't take early period Peter Robinson as being an unbiased source on any topic.
"Derry" was the default name in informal conversation on all sides but "Londonderry" was exclusively used officially and I've heard enough stories about it being used as a shibboleth by RUC and B-men long, long before Nationalists were in a position to change the name of the council.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Mar 6, 2019 21:59:54 GMT
I really wouldn't take early period Peter Robinson as being an unbiased source on any topic. "Derry" was the default name in informal conversation on all sides but "Londonderry" was exclusively used officially and I've heard enough stories about it being used as a shibboleth by RUC and B-men long, long before Nationalists were in a position to change the name of the council. I did rather wonder about that, especially as the point he seemed to be making was that "It was the Taigs that started it, miss" |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Mar 6, 2019 22:25:47 GMT
Peak Northern Ireland was a bunch of Unionist local politicians getting furious about some shop or other in the city running with 'Have a Derry Christmas' recently. Imagine being the sort of person to angrily insist that, NO, it should be: have a LONDONDERRY Christmas.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Mar 6, 2019 22:38:46 GMT
Interesting as well that they chose to call the nationalist west bank constituency "Foyle" rather than "Londonderry West" or something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Mar 6, 2019 22:48:55 GMT
This is Peak Northern Ireland, at the time of the last World Cup.  |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 6, 2019 22:57:41 GMT
Very easy to remember the difference between the Cote d'Ivoire flag and the Ireland flag - the Ireland flag has green on the hoist side, Cote d'Ivoire has orange.
|
|
