2018 Review - will it pass through Parliament?

[colm]

The most recent proposals for NI were very favourably for the DUP and unionism in general. The initial proposal and current proposal are radically different. The current proposal has retained the 4 seats in Belfast. The westminster constituencies are used for the assembly elections also and the current proposals appear to have been kind to unionism. While I feel the initial propsal was very radically I would have still expected Unionists to have won 9 of the 17 seats. The new proposal should leave unionists with 8 safe seats and the propsed changes to North Belfast seem reasonably ok for Dodds,while south Belfast is so mixed that the seat could alternate between a number of parties but should remain with unionists under a pact. Finally Fermanagh South Tyrone is feasible with a unionist pact,whereas the propsed changes in 2016 would have left it permanently nationalist. This is not my own analysis and I can give a link to the commentary on the propsedboundaries if anyone is interested, it comes from a nationalist blog in NI.

[willoughby]

That's great Colm thank you, but does that mean that the new proposals for Northern Ireland are better for DUP than the status quo?

[ricmk]

Does anyone know what has happened to Afzal Khan's private members bill that would amend the rules for boundary reviews. It passed second reading in the Commons on 01/12/2017 but I've heard nothing since. Is a Bill Committee likely to get going anytime? services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parliamentaryconstituenciesamendment.html

That's a material factor in whether the boundary review will get through intact.

[colm]

Apr 19, 2018 13:56:54 GMT willoughby said:

That's great Colm thank you, but does that mean that the new proposals for Northern Ireland are better for DUP than the status quo?

It depends on   how demographic predictions play out.  I assume you know that the religious background in NI is key to telling if someone will vote for a unionist or nationalist party.  If someone is from a protestant background it is pretty certain they will vote for unionist parties and someone from a catholic background is much more likely to vote for one of the nationalist parties.  According to the data in the 2011 census catholics there were more catholics than protestants  under the age of 37.  Apparently this trend is continuing with catholics being ahead of protestants in school etc.  With the % of catholics increasing and % of protestants decreasing there is the possibility of unionist votes and parties gradually losing some seats.  This recent survey appears to show a hint of some of these long held predictions coming true bangordub.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/lucid-talk-poll-feb-2018.jpg?w=529  Note the drop off in unionist party vote of UUP and DUP  and supposed gain of vote share for Sinn Fein with younger voters.

The Dup were never going to accept the first set of proposals as they disproportionately hurt unionism and hinted at the possibility of nationalists winning more seats than unionists.  Especially when the current boundaries give unionism a small advantage over nationalists (smaller quotas in east Northern Ireland where unionism is strong this is more important for assembly elections) however, the new proposals seem about as good as unionism could hope and they may accept them thinking it would only get worse under another review in 3 or 4 years time.  Personally I think they still prefer the 18 setas for NI, no one wants to vote themselves out of a job.

Please note the statistics to do with catholics and protestants could also be slightly misleading as many now tick no religion so there could be many lapsed protestants who thick no religion but would never vote for a nationalist party and some catholics will be from poland etc who may have less hostility towards unionist parties.  

Finally, there has been a line of commentary about NI politics  of supposed gains  being made by nationalist parties for years, but the overall nationalist vote  reached 42% in 2001 and has remained stagnant since then essentially.  Nationalism is always 5 years away from passing out unionism but this has yet to happen.

[East Anglian Lefty]

The revised proposals shore up the Unionist position fairly effectively, but at the cost of one fewer unionist seat. On the notionals it's Hermon who loses out rather than the DUP and it's doubtful that they can hold their current seats long-term anyway, but it's an open question whether they're willing to sacrifice short-term gain in order to preserve a medium-term advantage.

[willoughby]

Thanks Colm and thanks East Anglian Lefty so it sounds like a fair assumption that the DUP won't oppose the new boundaries, but could abstain - or inform the Tories that they will.

I'm sure you've all looked at this before so apols. But to recap for my benefit, if the DUP abstain the parliamentary maths looks like this:

Noes: Lab + SNP + LD + PC + Green + Sylvia Hermon + 3 Independent Lab MPs (Hopkins, O’Mara, Lewis) = 315

Ayes: Tory + Independent Tory (Elphicke) = 317

Surely too risky to try. But if the DUP support the maths becomes:

Noes: Lab + SNP + LD + PC + Green + Sylvia Hermon + 3 Independent Lab MPs (Hopkins, O’Mara, Lewis) = 315

Ayes: Tory + Independent Tory (Elphicke) + DUP = 327

In other words it becomes possible if May is feeling brave. It would need 6 Tory rebels for a draw (Bercow casting vote but a murky procedure), or 7 to defeat boundary changes.

[therealriga]

Apr 19, 2018 13:54:06 GMT colm said:

The most recent proposals for NI were very favourably for the DUP and unionism in general. The initial proposal and current proposal are radically different. The current proposal has retained the 4 seats in Belfast. The westminster constituencies are used for the assembly elections also

This is a point which gets overlooked when considering the DUP response/attitude. The legislation says that the assembly constituencies will be the Westminster constituencies, with each electing 5 assembly members. Reducing the Westminster constituencies by one therefore reduces the number of assembly seats by five. In general, that means 2 DUP assembly members fewer. Thus, three DUP politicians are out of work, not just one Westminster MP. As the DUP assembly members naturally have considerable clout in the party, it's another factor against a reduction of NI's seats to 17.

[willoughby]

very interesting thank you. another argument for abstention surely?

[willoughby]

I see the Afzal Khan 650 seats private members bill finally started its committee stage this week with another session planned for next week: hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-05-09/debates/c650c54b-69bb-43db-a89e-1f1e5d3932be/ParliamentaryConstituencies(Amendment)Bill(FirstSitting)

Chloe Smith for the Government refused to allow a money resolution though so its still not going anywhere. Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP) is on the bill cttee so will be interesting to see what his contributions are...

[Deleted]

What a farce!

[Deleted]

Apr 20, 2018 9:19:51 GMT willoughby said:

Thanks Colm and thanks East Anglian Lefty so it sounds like a fair assumption that the DUP won't oppose the new boundaries, but could abstain - or inform the Tories that they will.

I'm sure you've all looked at this before so apols. But to recap for my benefit, if the DUP abstain the parliamentary maths looks like this:

Noes: Lab + SNP + LD + PC + Green + Sylvia Hermon + 3 Independent Lab MPs (Hopkins, O’Mara, Lewis) = 315

Ayes: Tory + Independent Tory (Elphicke) = 317

Surely too risky to try. But if the DUP support the maths becomes:

Noes: Lab + SNP + LD + PC + Green + Sylvia Hermon + 3 Independent Lab MPs (Hopkins, O’Mara, Lewis) = 315

Ayes: Tory + Independent Tory (Elphicke) + DUP = 327

In other words it becomes possible if May is feeling brave. It would need 6 Tory rebels for a draw (Bercow casting vote but a murky procedure), or 7 to defeat boundary changes.

I'm sure Davies, Chope, and Bone if they don't change sides can find a few more.

[mondialito]

May 11, 2018 19:27:08 GMT @barnabymarder said:

Are Davies, Chope & Bone all committed to opposing? (Ironic since they are just about the 3 most right-wing MPs in the House & if they were to save Labour's bacon it would be pretty counter-intuitive.)

To be fair to Peter Bone (!) he has been consistent in saying that reducing the number of MPs makes little sense when powers are being repatriated from Brussels. The other two Brexiteers may feel the same way.

[East Anglian Lefty]

I don't know about Chope, but Davies is probably also unhappy about the Revised Proposals, given that he'd lose his two best wards.

[swanarcadian]

May 12, 2018 16:17:25 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

I don't know about Chope, but Davies is probably also unhappy about the Revised Proposals, given that he'd lose his two best wards.

Not to mention some of his constituents.

[willoughby]

If the DUP abstained, two of Chope, Davies and Bone would be enough to kill boundary changes...

...Whereas if the DUP support the Government, it would need 4 more rebels

[Deleted]

Possibly yes...

[Deleted]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Martin Vickers opposes the reduction.

[greenhert]

He does. However to stop the reduction enough Conservative rebels are needed-will there be enough come October 2018?

[greatkingrat]

And there is a big difference between having concerns about the seat reduction and actually voting against the government on what will presumably be a three line whip.

[Crimson King]

I know I could look it up, but someone here will know instantly, so what is the theoretical timetable from here on?