Tom
Unionist
Posts: 1,998 
|
Post by Tom on Jan 17, 2018 15:33:54 GMT
On the basis of this map: DUP - 10 SF 7 Unfortunately Lady Hermon loses out  |
|
|
|
Post by boondock on Jan 17, 2018 15:34:58 GMT
I still hope that the boundary review will be aborted, but if it does go ahead this will make it a lot more palatable. The original proposals for NI must have been drawn up by Sinn Fein as they were a perfect gerrymander from their point of view. It's amusing to see their supporters squeeling about gerrymandering in reply to that tweet now. Still, doesn't help Harrow.. I'm not a SF supporter. The initial boundaries defo favoured nationalists but there were a number of seats were a nationalist split vote or a unity candidate would have still given unionists a chance. These proposals that shore up DUP seats despite a demographic shift are at best suspicious. At the last Belfast council elections. Unionists got 35% of the vote so I think its fair to say it is odd to have 3 out of 4 safe seats so it isnt exactly squeeling more like making a rational observation. By the way these changes affect/f#ck the Alliance party and Sylvia Hermon who are hardly rabid republicans |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 17, 2018 15:54:08 GMT
I still hope that the boundary review will be aborted, but if it does go ahead this will make it a lot more palatable. The original proposals for NI must have been drawn up by Sinn Fein as they were a perfect gerrymander from their point of view. It's amusing to see their supporters squeeling about gerrymandering in reply to that tweet now. Still, doesn't help Harrow.. I'm not a SF supporter. The initial boundaries defo favoured nationalists but there were a number of seats were a nationalist split vote or a unity candidate would have still given unionists a chance. These proposals that shore up DUP seats despite a demographic shift are at best suspicious. At the last Belfast council elections. Unionists got 35% of the vote so I think its fair to say it is odd to have 3 out of 4 safe seats so it isnt exactly squeeling more like making a rational observation. By the way these changes affect/f#ck the Alliance party and Sylvia Hermon who are hardly rabid republicans I did say the replies on Twitter to be clear I wasn't directing my comments at you. I doubt those Belfast seats will be safe anyway, nor will Upper Bann in the long term (and not sure about the Coasts and Causeway based seat). Happy to f#ck Naomi Long and Sylvia Hermon (not literally of course) |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 17, 2018 19:04:26 GMT
I think I've reconstructed this on Boundary Assistant, except that I'm not quite sure about the border between East Antrim and Belfast North. If I've got it right, several constituencies have electorates below the minimum for the rest of the UK.
I have no brief whatsoever for the DUP, but I think there's a reasonable case for a four seat Belfast. IMO the suburban areas like Newtownbreda are functionally part of the city, even if they're not within the city council boundary, and including them in a largely rural constituency like the initial proposals' West Down didn't make a whole lot of sense; it also does seem that Belfast divides more naturally into four than into three. The flip side is that in this plan you do end up with a couple of genuinely rural wards in Belfast constituencies, but it is only a couple. Personally I'd have tried to put Dunmurry in Belfast South instead of Drumbo and Moneyreagh, and extended Belfast West a bit further north, compensating Belfast North with a bit more of the Glengormley area. (I don't know whether that can actually be made to work.)
|
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jan 17, 2018 23:03:24 GMT
To be fair to the commission the new proposals are much closer to minimum change, and look, from that map, to have less of the chopping off random bits of towns from the first draft.
It's not that different from what Arlene Foster would draw, but you could say the same about the first draft and Gerry Adams.
Mid Down is terrible however. (But is it worse than Glenshane?)
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 18, 2018 8:13:15 GMT
Personally I'd have tried to put Dunmurry in Belfast South instead of Drumbo and Moneyreagh, and extended Belfast West a bit further north, compensating Belfast North with a bit more of the Glengormley area. (I don't know whether that can actually be made to work.) Well: 1. Transfer Moneyreagh and Drumbo from Belfast South to Mid Down. There's then a question of whether the Carryduff wards should join them; it makes the shapes look better if they do but there's a bit of a problem with Knockbracken ward, which contains part of Carryduff as well as more obvious Belfast suburbia. Also, from what I remember Carryduff feels like an extension of the Belfast suburbs. 2. The extra electorate allows Mid Down to lose the four Banbridge wards, which would return to Upper Bann. If it doesn't take Carryduff, it should take Ballynahinch from South Down to get up to quota. 3. Add Dunmurry, Lambeg and Derriaghy wards (in Belfast West in the leak) to Belfast South. 4. Add two or three wards from the southern end of Belfast North to Belfast West. I'm not sure there's a very satisfactory way of doing this, but there are a number of possibilities. 5. Add the Jordanstown area to Belfast North, basically meaning that it contains all of the more urban wards in the east of the Antrim & Newtownabbey district. However, I have Mallusk in East Antrim. 6. Transfer Aghagallon and Magheralin from Upper Bann (otherwise too big with Banbridge) to South Antrim. 7. Add Templepatrick to East Antrim (rather than South, which would otherwise be too big). On the plus side, that keeps most rural territory out of Belfast seats and it makes Mid Down a bit less sprawling. On the minus side, the border between Belfast North and West is going to be less satisfactory and the trimming of Upper Bann gets closer to Lurgan than I might like. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jan 18, 2018 8:21:10 GMT
Could I make a rather important note and that this that as of 0819 GMT on January 18th 2018, there has been NO official publication of any revised boundaries on the Boundary Commission of Northern Ireland website, nor any official announcement on their Twitter feed. I am wondering therefore if someone (namely the PA) have broken an embargo or whether this is the first case of fake news in the United Kingdom that can be verified as fake news.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 8:47:01 GMT
Could I make a rather important note and that this that as of 0819 GMT on January 18th 2018, there has been NO official publication of any revised boundaries on the Boundary Commission of Northern Ireland website, nor any official announcement on their Twitter feed. I am wondering therefore if someone (namely the PA) have broken an embargo or whether this is the first case of fake news in the United Kingdom that can be verified as fake news. It was accidentally published on the BCNI website, that's how PA got it. It's real. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 18, 2018 9:22:32 GMT
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 18, 2018 11:33:33 GMT
That looks similar to the DUP counter proposal, have reports of the reviews demise been exaggerated? Given that these reported proposals have also aroused some controversy, isn't there at least a chance that the "revisions" could again be revised? |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jan 18, 2018 11:43:24 GMT
That looks similar to the DUP counter proposal, have reports of the reviews demise been exaggerated? Given that these reported proposals have also aroused some controversy, isn't there at least a chance that the "revisions" could again be revised? It is unlikely they would make any more major changes, they might swap an odd ward or two around. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 15:53:07 GMT
He makes an awful point of "proving" that the boundaries are nothing like the DUP's proposals, in actual fact they are virtually the same if not slightly better for the DUP (notably the Mid Down constituency exists in both proposals). Still, it's far from a gerrymander and makes the possibility of the review surviving more likely, though still unlikely. I think he's right about the DUP's position though. Their hostility to the review is not a new thing (they opposed the last one too) and it's not dependent on a particular map. At most, they might be persuaded to abstain but I doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 30, 2018 9:57:04 GMT
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jan 30, 2018 15:27:34 GMT
A complete redraw. And unlike before, they've made copious use of the freedom to go below the GB quota. The political significance of the changes is of course rather big, not just in NI but for the UK govt and the other boundary reviews. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42865159 |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 30, 2018 18:55:12 GMT
As others have said, Mid Down is the only obviously bad seat in the proposals. I note that splitting South Down and Mid Down on an east-west axis would produce seats with much better internal links, though with more electors moved. But would it be to anybody's partisan advantage to suggest that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 30, 2018 19:00:35 GMT
As others have said, Mid Down is the only obviously bad seat in the proposals. I note that splitting South Down and Mid Down on an east-west axis would produce seats with much better internal links, though with more electors moved. But would it be to anybody's partisan advantage to suggest that? Weird - I just came onto this thread to say exactly the same thing. Most (ie about 2/3rd)of the Eastern seat (which you'd still probably call Mid Down) would come from the proposed Mid Down with about a third from South Down and the other seat would be vice versa. Basically swapping Downpatrick area for Banbridge and Dromore. So I'd guess the East seat would be less solidly Unionist but still safe - could cause some objections in Downpatrick I suppose. The other seat I suppose could be vulnerable to a united Unionist candidate given the split nature of the Nationalist vote but would be a long shot. It could end up looking like an attempted gerrymander though, even though it makes much more sense based on communications. Newtownards and Downpatrick in the same seat would still be odd |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 30, 2018 19:57:21 GMT
Well, congratulations. You've made the proposed Mid Down look like a good seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 30, 2018 20:15:11 GMT
As others have said, Mid Down is the only obviously bad seat in the proposals. I note that splitting South Down and Mid Down on an east-west axis would produce seats with much better internal links, though with more electors moved. But would it be to anybody's partisan advantage to suggest that? Weird - I just came onto this thread to say exactly the same thing. Most (ie about 2/3rd)of the Eastern seat (which you'd still probably call Mid Down) would come from the proposed Mid Down with about a third from South Down and the other seat would be vice versa. Basically swapping Downpatrick area for Banbridge and Dromore. So I'd guess the East seat would be less solidly Unionist but still safe - could cause some objections in Downpatrick I suppose. The other seat I suppose could be vulnerable to a united Unionist candidate given the split nature of the Nationalist vote but would be a long shot. It could end up looking like an attempted gerrymander though, even though it makes much more sense based on communications. Newtownards and Downpatrick in the same seat would still be odd You'd also need to shift Newcastle, I think (always assuming you leave everything else unchanged, which isn't a given). Though I presume that still wouldn't shift the needle enough? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 30, 2018 20:19:19 GMT
As others have said, Mid Down is the only obviously bad seat in the proposals. I note that splitting South Down and Mid Down on an east-west axis would produce seats with much better internal links, though with more electors moved. But would it be to anybody's partisan advantage to suggest that? As I mentioned previously my preference would be as follows based on the Commission's proposals elsewhere:  Electorate figures:Craigavon = 70,233 Strangford = 76,777 Armagh & Banbridge = 77,142 Newry & Mourne = 75,969 ExplanationThis would result in minimal change in Strangford and greater parity between constituency and district boundaries. Strangford would be a DUP constituency covering the vast bulk of the former Down district council area + the part of the former Ards district council area not located on the Ards Pennisula (consisting of Newtonards and its surroundings). Resembles the current Strangford constituency, only moving south into some more mixed areas in the present South Down constituency and losing the strongly unionist Ards Pennisula to North Down. Would still be safe DUP. Craigavon would be a DUP constituency covering wards belonging to the former Craigavon district council area + 2 wards from Armagh. Voting here would be similar to the current Upper Bann constituency. Armagh & Banbridge would be a DUP constituency covering the vast majority of the former Armagh and Banbridge district council areas + 4 wards from Lisburn in the very north-east of the constituency to ensure suitable electorate figures for the surrounding constituencies. Would be similar to Upper Bann in voting. Newry & Mourne has always been the most nationalist/republican part of Northern Ireland and would almost certainly return Sinn Fein. I'm guienely surprised that the area wasn't partitioned off to southern Ireland. Newry & Mourne is a very clear division from the rest of Counties Armagh and Down and matches up well with district council boundaries. The current division is absolutely ideal for Sinn Féin, the party would not accept this. Nationalist parties likely took upwards of 85% of the vote here in 2017. Net effect of these changes on the current proposals would be- DUP 11 (+1) SF 6 (-1) I think you could get away with putting Portadown with Armagh, therefore reconfigure your Craigavon and Armagh & Banbridge seats on East West lines and still maintain 3 Unionist seats in the area. Newry & Mourne was always an obvious opportunity for a packed gerrymander - it was suggested ahead of the 1997 review I believe, but of course would never happen and you can't even justify it on the grounds of it being coterminous with the local authority anymore |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 30, 2018 20:22:03 GMT
Weird - I just came onto this thread to say exactly the same thing. Most (ie about 2/3rd)of the Eastern seat (which you'd still probably call Mid Down) would come from the proposed Mid Down with about a third from South Down and the other seat would be vice versa. Basically swapping Downpatrick area for Banbridge and Dromore. So I'd guess the East seat would be less solidly Unionist but still safe - could cause some objections in Downpatrick I suppose. The other seat I suppose could be vulnerable to a united Unionist candidate given the split nature of the Nationalist vote but would be a long shot. It could end up looking like an attempted gerrymander though, even though it makes much more sense based on communications. Newtownards and Downpatrick in the same seat would still be odd You'd also need to shift Newcastle, I think (always assuming you leave everything else unchanged, which isn't a given). Though I presume that still wouldn't shift the needle enough? No Newcastle would still be in South/West Down - the Mid seat would go as far West as Hillsborough |
|
