Nicholas ([info]nwhyte) wrote,
@ 2006-05-18 07:45:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:elections, world: northern ireland

Boundary Commission's Revised Recommendations
The Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland has published its revised recommendations for Northern Ireland's 18 parliamentary constituencies. My take in five lines:

  • This is much more modest than the original set of changes in their provisional recommendations.
  • I don't see any significant impact on the next Westminster elections as a result of the new boundaries.
  • At Assembly level, the SDLP will lose their current seat in Lagan Valley; but there will now be now a safe Nationalist seat in East Antrim (where the SDLP won an unexpected seat in the 1998 elections, but lost it in 2003).
  • The changes to South Belfast, plus last week's demise of the Women's Coalition, will put Alliance in a stronger position to win a seat there; though the party still has quite some way to go.
  • The entrenchement of six Assembly seats per constituency in the Good Friday Agreement results in the under-representation of voters in Newry and Armagh, North Antrim and Upper Bann, which are all large enough to warrant a seventh seat at Assembly elections.


(Thanks, as ever, to Conal Kelly for the map.)

I'll look at this in more detail over the weekend. This is what I put together before breakfast:

  • Belfast East constituency to include the Castlereagh LGD wards of Ballyhanwood, Carrowreagh, Dundonald, Enler and Graham’s Bridge. These wards are at present in the Strangford constituency;
    Does it make sense? Yes. The DUP successfully managed to keep Cregagh in East Belfast - the previous recommendations would have moved it to South Belfast, but the Commission has now swapped it for the Hillfoot ward instead..
    Demographic shift: The new East Belfast is roughly 3% more Protestant than the current constituency.
    Westminster consequences: no serious threat to Peter Robinson.
    Assembly consequences: DUP slightly strengthened at expense of Nationalists and PUP, but probably no change.
  • Belfast North constituency to include the Newtownabbey LGD wards of Ballyhenry, Collinbridge, Glebe, Glengormley and Hightown, at present in the South Antrim constituency, and Cloughfern, at present in the East Antrim constituency;
    Does it make sense? Broadly yes. Specifically no. The weird division of the Shankill Road between North and West Belfast remains, and the new boundary weaves through the streets of Glengormley. Better to have left Cloughfern in East Antrim and extended North Belfast a bit farther northwest. (Query Shankill?)

    Demographic shift: The new North Belfast is 0.9% more Catholic edited to correct: Protestant than the current constituency.
    The new South Antrim is 1.6% more Protestant than the current constituency.
    Westminster consequences: In North Belfast this slightly accelerates Nationalist growth, slightly diminishes DUP dominance. In South Antrim the DUP are strengthened, probably not enough to make a difference.
    Assembly consequences: In North Belfast, DUP will slip slightly to UUP, but are so far ahead that it hardly matters.
    In South Antrim, second Nationalist quota is a little further away, so SF starting from a lower base next time (but probably would still take SDLP seat).
  • Belfast South constituency to include the Castlereagh LGD wards of Carryduff East and Carryduff West at present in the Strangford constituency, and Wynchurch and Hillfoot, at present in the Belfast East constituency;
    Does it make sense? Yes; boundary with East Belfast is a bit inelegant but makes sense on the ground.
    Demographic shift: The new South Belfast is 0.5% more Protestant than the current constituency.
    Westminster consequences: none.
    Assembly consequences: Alliance slightly strengthened (from very weak position) at expense of UUP, and third Nationalist seat (currently second SDLP seat) looks weaker (but probably will be helped by demographic growth).
  • Belfast West constituency to include the Lisburn LGD wards of Dunmurry and part of Derryaghy, at present in the Lagan Valley constituency.
    Does it make sense? Yes, apart from remarks about continued split of Shankill above under North Belfast; and the split of Derryaghy ward is unprecedented.
    Demographic shift: The new West Belfast is 0.2% more Catholic than the current constituency.
    Westminster consequences: none.
    Assembly consequences: DUP (or at least Unionist) seat is safer.
  • Strangford constituency loses to South and West Belfast as noted above; it gets the Down LGD wards of Ballymaglave, Ballynahinch East, and Kilmore. The wards at present form part of the South Down constituency.
    Does it make sense? The most dubious of the new recommendations, in my view. It is news to me that Ballynahinch looks to Newtownards as a political centre.
    Demographic shift: The new Strangford is 1.3% more Catholic than the current constituency.
    Westminster consequences: depends on the ability of the UUP to mobilise tactical voting if the DUP have a bad year.
    Assembly consequences: Nationalist seat, barely missed in 2003, is slightly more possible now. Alliance looks most vulnerable - good areas in Castlereagh lost to East and South Belfast, in return for parts of Down where the party has no recent record.
  • South Down unchanged except for losses to Strangford (major changes in provisional recommendations withdrawn).
    Does it make sense? See above remarks re Ballynahinch. The proposed division of Newry Town would only have restored the constituency boundary to where it was until 1983, but I guess the locals put up a strong case for no change.
    Demographic shift: The new South Down is 3.2% more Catholic than the current constituency.
    Westminster consequences: Brings the seat within reach for Sinn Féin.
    Assembly consequences: Second Unionist seat is now marginal; currently UUP (who held this constituency at Westminster until 1987) still ahead of DUP. On 2003 results SDLP better placed to pick up - for now.
  • Upper Bann unchanged.
    Does it make sense? The minor alterations originally proposed were pretty silly.
  • Lagan Valley loses one and a half Dunmurry wards to West Belfast, and Glenavy to South Antrim.
    Does it make sense? Recognises the demographic shifts, though the splitting of Derryaghy is inelegant.
    Demographic shift: The new Lagan Valley is 5.3% more Protestant than the current constituency.
    Westminster consequences: None.
    Assembly consequences: The SDLP seat held by Patricia Lewsley looks doomed; the Catholic percentage of the population is now only just over a quota, and this in a constituency where many Catholics vote Alliance. On the Unionist side the votes will be affected much more by the move of several local personalities from the UUP to the DUP than by the constituency boundaries.
  • East Antrim constituency to be extended to include the Moyle LGD wards of Glenaan, Glenariff, and Glendun at present in the North Antrim constituency (the shift of Ballycastle in the original recommendations is withdrawn, as is the silly proposal to rename East Antrim "Antrim Coast and Glens").
    Does it make sense? No. At the southern end, it would have been better to shift a couple more Glengormley wards into North Belfast rather than Cloughfern. At the northern end, it's simply absurd to suggest that the Glens look to Jordanstown rather than Ballymena as a regional centre.
    Demographic shift: The new East Antrim is 4.0% more Catholic than the current East Antrim constituency.  The new North Antrim is 2.6% more Protestant than the current constituency.
    Westminster consequences: UUP have a larger pool of potential Nationalist tactical votes to regain East Antrim with, if their fortunes ever revive.
    Assembly consequences: One very safe Nationalist seat in East Antrim, rather than the marginal one lost in 2003. Probably enough spare votes to keep Alliance in play, so likely loser would be third DUP seat.
    In North Antrim, however, the second Nationalist seat gained in 2003 is vulnerable.
  • It is proposed to alter the boundaries of the East Londonderry and Foyle constituencies by transferring the two Derry LGD wards of Banagher and Claudy from the Foyle constituency to the East Londonderry constituency.
    Does it make sense? Yes.
    Demographic shift: The new East Londonderry is 2.1% more Catholic than the current constituency. The new Foyle is 0.3% more Catholic than the current constituency.
    Westminster consequences: None.
    Assembly consequences: In East Londonderry, Nationalists closer to a third seat but
    still some way off. In Foyle, Unionists slightly further from a second seat that was never very likely.
  • No changes are proposed to the Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Mid Ulster, North Down and West Tyrone constituencies.
    Does it make sense? Yes. Although the Mid-Ulster and West Tyrone constituencies are both very new in their current form, they are reasonably sound natural units and like Fermanagh-South Tyrone close enough to the quota that no change is necessary. Tinkering with North Down could have given a bit more flexibility for the rearrangement of Strangford.


Edited to add: West Belfast/Lagan Valley - I have rerun the figures making the most sense I can from the census. On my current estimate the new West Belfast is 0.2% more Catholic, not (as I had first thought) 0.7% less, and Lagan Valley 6.3% more Protestant rather than 5.3%. I think the DUP seat in West Belfast remains marginal but salvageable - the total Unionist vote share actually increased there in 2003 from 1998 - but the SDLP seat in Lagan Valley does not.

NB also minor (cough) correction to North Belfast as originally described.


(38 comments) - (Post a new comment)

local council realignment
[info]slimmeroftheyea
2006-05-18 10:27 am UTC (link)
does the above have any impact on this? Any changes to North Down?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: local council realignment
[info]nwhyte
2006-05-18 10:40 am UTC (link)
No changes to the North Down parliamentary constituency. I think it may feed into the local government boundary review a bit, but basically Holywood is unlikely to be merged into Belfast.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: local council realignment
[info]slimmeroftheyea
2006-05-19 02:20 pm UTC (link)
Was just wondering about Craigavon as well. they would need to do something!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: local council realignment
[info]nwhyte
2006-05-19 02:49 pm UTC (link)
The proposed draft Southern Council is pretty close to the three parliamentary constituencies of Upper Bann + Newry & Armagh + South Down. I should think that all of Craigavon, all of Armagh and all of Newry and Mourne councils will go into that mix. The only real questions are how much of Banbridge and how little of Down.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Boundary Commission recommendations
(Anonymous)
2006-05-18 12:31 pm UTC (link)
Don't think you're quite right about West Belfast. The heavily unionist Seymour Hill and the unionist part of Derryaghy are now in Lagan Valley and the reamining five and a half wards of the seven wards of Dunmurry Cross are now in West Belfast. To me, this marginally worsens the position of the West Belfast DUP seat and marginally strengthens the chance of SDLP holding on to its one seat.

Would not quite right off Patricia Lewsley just yet. Seamus Close is quite a bit older and Patricia will have more appeal to the women's vote.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Boundary Commission recommendations
[info]nwhyte
2006-05-18 02:31 pm UTC (link)
Hmm. I have rerun the figures making the most sense I can from the census, and agree that in fact the DUP in West Belfast are marginally worse off rather than marginally better. On my current estimate the new West Belfast is 0.2% more Catholic, not (as I had first thought) 0.7% less.

I would not write Diane Dodds off. It would require miracles of vote management even by the Shinners' standards to balance five candidates ahead of both her and the SDLP. And don't forget that the total Unionist vote share actually increased in 2003 from 1998, using the old boundaries.

Lagan Valley, however, looks even worse for the SDLP on this basis - 6.3% more Protestant rather than 5.3% as I had first thought, which brings the total with Catholic "community background" below a quota; and Patricia Lewsley's vote share in the last Westminster election was only 6.1%! At least they are more likely to stay ahead of Sinn Fein, but it may not help.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Foolish question time
[info]redfiona99
2006-05-18 01:47 pm UTC (link)
But why did they decide to reorganise the wards?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Foolish question time
[info]nwhyte
2006-05-18 02:16 pm UTC (link)
They have to, every ten to fifteen years.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

belfast
(Anonymous)
2006-05-18 06:01 pm UTC (link)
The most interesting bit to my eyes were teh comments about the wards in castlereagh and glengormley (and lagan valley) being 'naturally' part of Belfast and how there was no need to limit Belfast to the outdated corporation boundary.

strong words, will this bind their consideration of teh local government boundaries?? expanded Belfast now looks more likely..

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: belfast
(Anonymous)
2006-05-18 06:02 pm UTC (link)
that was from 'idunnomeself'

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: belfast
[info]nwhyte
2006-05-19 05:14 am UTC (link)
Yep, I agree. The four inner Castlereagh wards have, of course, been in Belfast for parliamentary purposes since 1983, and the case for Poleglass/Twinbrook is also very strong.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: belfast
(Anonymous)
2006-05-20 10:11 pm UTC (link)
When you total up the numbers, I believe NB is now over the target and larger than both EA and WB. What are the chances that in the final submission that they would fix Court or leave Cloughfern in EA?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Is this basically the end?
(Anonymous)
2006-05-18 06:05 pm UTC (link)
What is the likelyhood that the final reccomendations and the plan that goes into effect for the next election (or the one after that if for some reason a very early Westminster election is held before the changes are finalized) will be at all different from these revised reccomendations? I get the sense that changes between the initial and revised reccomendations due to public inquiries and the reaction of important people to the initial reccomendations are a lot more common than changes between the revised reccomendations and the final plan. With one ward proposed to be divided between constituencies a slight change in that area that eliminates that split might be more common than usual, but how likely is it that, say, the Glens of Antrim (besides Glenshesk if that's even considered part of the Glens - I think it's in the Glens DEA in Moyle LGD unlike Ballycastle) are "moved back" (not that they left yet, but you know what I mean) to North Antrim in exchange for the Ballymena wards of Broughshane, Slemish and Glenwhirry which you reported David Ford as having mentioned as a possibility to you back in 2003? That would likely be way too extreme for a last-minute change, those wards being much closer to Ballymena than the Glens and almost as far from Jordanstown. But what about say your ancestral home of Loughbrickland being moved into South Down after all? It kind of sticks out being in Upper Bann, although Banbridge town would stick out about as badly if not worse if Lougbrickland war removed. Basically, I'm curious as to the scope of feasable changes to the current reccomendations at this point in the game, and whether any further public hearings are likely. Thanks. - Interested person from Maine, USA

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Is this basically the end?
(Anonymous)
2006-05-18 09:47 pm UTC (link)
SPEAKING AS SOMEONE BORN REARED AND LIVING IN GLENSHESK I CAN ASSURE YOU IT IS PART OF THE GLENS AS IS GLENTASIE WHICH WOULD ALSO REMAIN IN NORTH ANTRIM. I STILL THINK ITS IS STRANGE TO HAVE CUSHENDALL CUSHENDUN AND GLENARRIFFE LOOKING TO LARNE INSTEAD OF BALLYMENA BUT SURE WHAT WOULD A CIVIL SERVANT FROM BANGOR KNOW ABOUT IT ANYWAY

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Is this basically the end?
[info]nwhyte
2006-05-19 05:15 am UTC (link)
DON'T SHOUT IN MY LIVEJOURNAL!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Is this basically the end?
[info]slimmeroftheyea
2006-05-19 02:25 pm UTC (link)
If you are going to shout, at least don't do it anonymously!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Is this basically the end?
[info]nwhyte
2006-05-19 05:19 am UTC (link)
My only experience of this was last time round, but I reckon that these are probably the boundaries we get. I imagine that there will be some people who want the question of the three Ballymena wards looked at again; but I can't see anyone desperately wanting Loughbrickland moved from Upper Bann to South Down!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2006-05-19 01:43 am UTC (link)
Am I right that Newry & Armagh is completely unchanged now?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nwhyte
2006-05-19 05:15 am UTC (link)
Yes.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2006-05-19 02:11 pm UTC (link)
E Antrim: do three minute Glens wards (and losing Cloughfern) make a nationalist seat safe when they only have 8 - 10% under old boundaries? Better prospect, but not safe IMO.

S Antrim: the proposed boundary specifically doesn't 'meander through the streets of Glengormley' as the provisional recommendations had it. I understand that the reason why Burnthill stays in SA is because it has a clearer southern boundary than its northern line with Carnmoney ward.

sizes: how can they justify just the tiniest change to NA when it was so over quota and stays so, despite EA and SA now both significantly under quota?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nwhyte
2006-05-19 02:47 pm UTC (link)
E Antrim: O'Connor lost his seat last time by 800 votes. The new East Antrim is 4% more Catholic, which is 1200 votes. Of course much depends on how the SDLP/SF balance shifts, but on the numbers alone, O'Connor should not have won in 1998!

S Antrim: so it's OK to split wards between Lagan Valley and West Belfast, but not in Glengormley...

sizes: North Antrim was the most bloated constituency last time around as well!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2006-05-19 05:46 pm UTC (link)
With part of the Glens being transferred to East Antrim, do you think it likely that the SDLP will gain a seat in the East but lose Farren's seat to the Unionists?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nwhyte
2006-05-19 10:01 pm UTC (link)
No, I think there are still two Nationalist seats there. Just about.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

EAST DERRY
(Anonymous)
2006-05-19 11:29 pm UTC (link)
WITH THE NATIONLIST POULATION NOW OVER 40% (FROM CENSUS 5 YEARS AGO) IT WONT BE TOO LONG BEFORE THIRD ASSEMBLY SEAT FOR THE NATIONLIST IS FOR REAL AND IF ONLY ONE NATIONLIST PARTY STANDS AT THE NEXT WESTMINISTER ELECTIONS. THEN WE COULD BE LOOKING AT A NEW MP.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: EAST DERRY
[info]nwhyte
2006-05-20 04:47 am UTC (link)
DON'T SHOUT !

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: EAST DERRY
(Anonymous)
2006-05-20 05:53 pm UTC (link)
That may be the population, but how what are the proportions at voting age?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: EAST DERRY
(Anonymous)
2006-06-02 05:41 pm UTC (link)
According to 2001 census figures 34.74% of the East Derry's population were Catholic (adjusted figure 37.94). So even with an additional 2.01% it still only comes to 39.95%. What percentage of those are at voting age is another matter. With no nationalist party eclipsing the other, I think Gregory Cambell can rest easy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: EAST DERRY
(Anonymous)
2006-06-09 10:52 pm UTC (link)
the rise is 2.1% not 2.01and the figure now is 40.06% nationlist. i know te proportion at voting age will be somewhat less but that is 2001 were talking about the unionis t population is down below 57% the figure needed for four quotas and so in the assembly elections by the 2nd assembly elections probaly in 2012 there will be a third quota for a nationlist. as i said before if one nationlist candidate would just stand for the next general election they would give our present mp a run for his money.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: EAST DERRY
[info]nwhyte
2006-06-12 04:34 pm UTC (link)
I think Campbell is going to be your MP until the boundaries change again. The numbers are such that the UUP will not stand against him next time. The UUP has always been more ready to pull out of such contests than the SDLP anyway.

As for the 2012 elections, 1) they won't happen unless there is a deal between the DUP and Sinn Fein, and 2) there will be another census before then, so we will have better grounds for discussion. But in any case the big demographic bulge is in the 15-24 age group in the 2001 census, and they are all already voting.

Please indicate who you are next time.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

7 seaters
(Anonymous)
2006-05-21 02:55 pm UTC (link)
If there was to be a 7th seat in Newry and Armagh, North Antrim and Upper Bann - who would get them??

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: 7 seaters
[info]nwhyte
2006-05-21 04:05 pm UTC (link)
DUP in North Antrim and Upper Bann, SDLP in Newry and Armagh.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

South Belfast
(Anonymous)
2006-05-21 09:16 pm UTC (link)
May I ask a question about South Belfast? Why do you say that it makes sense on the ground not to include Cregagh? I would have thought that a suburban Belfast ward would have fitted in with the constituency more than the Carryduff ones, which do make up (or did) an independent County Down town. This is going to be the second time in a decade that Carryduff has been moved from one constituency to another and I'm surprised that there were few objections to this. (Not least from the DUP, because it will halp Alasdair McDonnell keep his seat in 2009.)

The Watchman

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: South Belfast
(Anonymous)
2006-05-21 11:35 pm UTC (link)
Cregagh was going to be in one of the four Belfast wards in any case - the only debate was which Belfast ward it would be in, South Belfast as as present or East Belfast. The two Carryduff wards and Cregagh were all proposed to be added East Belfast in the provisional recommendations, so it's not like Carryduff was added to East Belfast instead of Cregagh (the Hillfoot ward was).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: South Belfast
[info]nwhyte
2006-05-22 05:07 am UTC (link)
ITYM: Cregagh was going to be in one of the four Belfast wards constituencies in any case - the only debate was which Belfast ward constituency it would be in, South Belfast as as present or East Belfast. The two Carryduff wards and Cregagh were all proposed to be added East to South Belfast in the provisional recommendations, so it's not like Carryduff was added to East Belfast instead of Cregagh (the Hillfoot ward was).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: South Belfast
[info]nwhyte
2006-05-22 05:06 am UTC (link)
The choice was not between Cregagh and Carryduff - Carryduff was already going into South Belfast. The choice was whether Cregagh or some other ward should move from East Belfast to South Belfast. The locals successfully put the case that Cregagh ought to stay in East Belfast, which made the Hillfoot ward the obvious one to move instead.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

you mistakenly have West Belfast still gaining Seymour Hill
(Anonymous)
2006-05-21 11:31 pm UTC (link)
You say on your initial post on this blog, "Belfast West constituency to include the Lisburn LGD wards of Dunmurry and Seymour Hill, and part of Derryaghy, at present in the Lagan Valley constituency." As I believe you know, the revised recommendations ( http://www.boundarycommission.org.uk/pubs/announcement.pdf ) have the Seymour Hill ward in Lisburn LGD remaining in the Lagan Valley constituency, and it is shown as being in Lagan Valley on the Boundary Commission's map of the revised proposed constituencies ( http://www.boundarycommission.org.uk/pics/new-ni-big.jpg and more clearly http://www.boundarycommission.org.uk/pics/new-belfast-big.jpg ). I believe you know that because you refer to Lagan Valley as only losing "one and a half Dunmurry wards" rather than two and a half (or "two and a half Lisburn LGD wards if Seymour Hill was still going to West Belfast but wasn't considered part of Dunmurry) to Belfast West. I just thought I'd mention that so you could correct it and people wouldn't be confused. - Kevin (the interested person) from Maine, USA

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: you mistakenly have West Belfast still gaining Seymour Hill
[info]nwhyte
2006-05-22 04:59 am UTC (link)
Cheers.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

article
[info]slimmeroftheyea
2006-05-23 02:32 pm UTC (link)
Makes very interesting reading!

(Reply to this)


(38 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…