South Belfast: The real joker in the pack…
This was fascinating. South Belfast, once an Ulster Unionist banker, now has a majority of non Unionist representatives. Five of the six elected MLAs all made it to ten percent. It’s also the most conspicuous block on the DUP landscape, and an abject failure of the party’s vote management. We understand that some time Friday pm, they abandoned the preformed schema, and began handing out Stalford 1 leaflets at places where Jimmy Spratt had been slated for the top slot. Michael McGimpsey only just scraped it. There may be some horsetrading ahead.
Tags: Election 2007
Leaving aside jamestwo’s tedious “our day will come” broken record, I tend to agree wth valenciano that this was a bad result for the DUP, although both unionist parties bungled the voting system. But, as Fair Deal said, a wake-up is better now. If the DUP is to win the Westminster seat, as it is still placed to do so, it is going to have to soften its image considerably to fit in with the distinct ethos of the constituency. It also has work to do with the growing ethnic minorities there. (I was in Tesco on the Lisburn Road at Christmas for the first time in years and was struck by the foreign accents.) But all unionists must start taking responsibility for ensuring that, even if your own brand of unionist cannot win, you need to ensure that another kind of unionist can.
The DUP in Belfast South could do worse than take a leaf out of SF’s book in Lagan Valley?
Next Westminister Election
McGimpsey spent the last Westminister campaign calling Jimmy Spratt “the Splitter” the figures proved that it was McGimsey who split the vote allowing the seat to go to McDonnell. No doubt he will still be out next time round claimimg that South Belfast is a UUP seat!
I’m the Chairman/Secretary of the South Belfast UUP – I don’t normally post on Slugger (only 1 post before) but I felt I should do so to correct a No. of points made re. South Belfast, and the UUP in particular.
First of all –
(a) Michael McGimpsey didn’t support the decision to run 3 candidates, he remained neutral throughout the debate saying he had close personal ties with the other two candidates, and understandably didn’t want to get involved with this decision. This decision was taken by the constituency association via private ballot, and it was decided by a narrow margin to run 3 candidates – admittedly Michael McGimpsey took part in this, but as it was a private ballot his vote obviously remains a secret.
(b) As a ‘reasonable’ expert in the STV system I can prove that if the UUP had run 2 candidates this would not have made any difference to the final outcome, given the way the results turned out. Anna Lo and Alex Maskey would still have been elected, along with the others. Yes – If the UUP had run 1 candidate, and the DUP 2, or indeed the other way round, then it would have been more likely that we would have ended up with 3 unionists elected. However to ask the UUP to run only 1 candidate (or the DUP for that matter) would have stretched their self-respect and pride to breaking point!
Some general observations : I’m pleased to note that some of your regular contributors are now getting a bit of realism into their comments about South Belfast, and are beginning to understand how this constituency really works. Since the May 05 Westminster election I’ve always said that it will take a United Unionist candidate, and also a very particular type (and indeed rare type!) of United Unionist candidate, to win this seat back for Unionism at the next Westminster election.
SouthBelfastWatcher
“I’ve always said that it will take a United Unionist candidate, and also a very particular type (and indeed rare type!) of United Unionist candidate, to win this seat back for Unionism at the next Westminster election.”
Please do explain further.
“Since the May 05 Westminster election I’ve always said that it will take a United Unionist candidate, and also a very particular type (and indeed rare type!) of United Unionist candidate, to win this seat back for Unionism at the next Westminster election. “
A non-aligned unionist backed by both parties?
Alex Kane?
Watchman,
Clearly he means a nice middle class bank director who hasn’t the overtly antagonistic baggage of the Gimp to aggravate the DUP, but who is nonetheless fundamentally damp, knowing that there isn’t such a beast within the DUP. Is Rafton Pounder still dead?
of course the type of candidate he would really like is someone with a record of hard constituency work , quite young, articulate, professional, who can appeal to the proles while not frightening the Maloners. If he absolutely has to be an Orangeman he shouldn’t be too strident.
Sounds frighteningly like..er, Jeffrey Donaldson.I wonder if the S Belfast chairman backed his then MP in trying to stop the expulsion moves against Jeffers.
And the problem for the UUP is that the next Jeffrey Donaldson is far more likely to be an ex-YU now in the DUP backroom than anyone in Cunningplan House’s address book
Well there is a strong case for getting that person into the media now and getting him known to people in South Belfast, whoever it is.
You sound like you are talking about Basil mcCrea to me.
Basil of course has no chance to beat Jeffrey in Lagan Valley, and South Belfast is not too far away.
Just to clarify – I’m not Alex Kane : I was Chairman of South Belfast UUP when the decision was taken to run 3 candidates, and I’m now the secretary, and chair of the management committee – so in effect I run the constituency association.
In terms of who I’m actually talking about as a candidate – I was explaining my view on the type of candidate, and wasn’t referring to any specific person : Frankly, I have no particular person in mind at this stage, although I do have some views/ideas, which given my position within the South Belfast UUP, will have to remain confidential : I’m sure you will understand this.
I’ll leave you all to speculate!!!
If Bill White hadn’t been one of the gaggle who backed the Gimp’s efforts to drive Martin out, the seat would still have a Unionist MP.
And by all means Bill, come back and claim you didn’t, but we both know there’s not a soul in existence who was in the association in 2004/2005 who’ll believe you. I can even save you the time of having to type out your feigned outrage e.g. ‘oh but Martin wanted to stand down, I had nothing to do with it, it was his own free decision ……’ & so on & so forth – well, balls. Martin jumped before he was pushed because he knew that even if he had gone for readoption last time, the Gimp had got, thanks to you Bill, & more like you, enough votes to get rid of him, come what may, as the 2005 UU GE candidate.
Bring back Robert Foy – he’d bring back a damn sight more members too!
Malone Park : Lets be clear here – I’m not getting into a debate on all these issues : I’m far too busy with other things.
As I said in my first post today, I don’t regularly post on Slugger, and I just wanted to correct a few items etc.
All I can say is this :
(a) Martin Smyth would have won the nomination from the South Belfast UUP Association, if he had decided to run again in 2005. I told him this weeks before the selection meeting (albeit indirectly – though I know he knew my views!). Also, to be fair, you must understand that his wife had some health issues at that time, so that may have understandably influenced his decision.
(b) However, it was Martin’s responsibility over a No. of years to groom a successor, as it is with all sensible forward planning MPs, and elected representatives. He never did this – or at least it appeared that he didn’t do this.
In addition, I’m not getting involved with personalities – I know Robert Foy as a friend and colleague. However, as I would say to Robert, Jimmy Spratt, Christopher Stalford or anyone – To win the South Belfast seat for Unionism we have to attract back the middle-ground ‘small u’ unionist voters that have deserted the Unionist camp in South Belfast. Michael McGimpsey had these voters on board in 1998, and to a lesser extent in 2003, but a large chunk of them went to Anna Lo last Wednesday.
It’s a mathematical fact (NB A MATHEMATICAL FACT – not my opinion), that we have to get 1,500-2,000
of these Anna Lo voters, to vote for the Unionist candidate in any future Westminster election, to have any hope of winning the seat.
Are you saying that the type of ‘new’ UUP members you’re referring to, and that you say Robert Foy would attract, would be able to reach out to these Anna Lo voters????
Where the hell has Karl Rove been?
SBW
“I’ll leave you all to speculate!!!”
since you have given it all away anyway – but somebody should tell you that if you put your cursor over your name on the bottom left it gives your email address !!
That caught a lot of us out when this new system was adopted
‘I’ll leave you all to speculate’ referred to speculating as to who should be the Unionist candidate at the next Westminster election – I haven’t any firm views/ideas on this myself yet, so I’m not sure what you mean by ‘giving it all away anyway’, as I’ve nothing to give away at the moment!!
If you mean that people know who I am – I’ve no problem with that : I’ve put forward the views expressed above publicly on many occasions.
SBW
I apologise I must have mis-understood
SBW
“It’s a mathematical fact (NB A MATHEMATICAL FACT – not my opinion), that we have to get 1,500-2,000 of these Anna Lo voters”
I’d go back to your maths teacher if I was you.
1. The combined Unionist % is ahead of the combined Nationalist %. A single Unionist candidate has a clear edge.
2. Unionism’s problem in the Assembly election was the DUP failing to get 1500 core voters and the UUP failure to get 500 core voters to the polls. Plus the figures suggest that there is up to 2000 further Unionist voters who come out for Westminster elections.
3. There is also voter registration work that can provide extra votes too.
Plus you overlook that Alliance will have to run a Westminster candidate to try and maintain their Assembly seat. Plus is it in SF’s interests that McDonnell keeps the seat? Highly likely SF will run at Westminster too.
A candidate who does not aggravate Alliance voters would be sensible but Unionism is not reliant on their votes to take the seat.
As for a United Unionist candidate that was the idea for two years ago.
SBW
I think it would be fair to say that a reasonable percentage of the (alleged 20% or so) of Catholics who want to retain the Union at present are based in South Belfast.
As a Catholic, I personally was impressed with the UU campaign and with Reg Empey. Unfortunately I was disappointed with their vote and that the dinosaur DUP did so well.
For what it’s worth, I believe that the type of Unionism (for all of us) advocated by the UUP is perhaps 10 years ahead of the majority of Unionist thinking. A pity because the only way Unionism will survive in the longer term is by turning away from the old Orange Order, anti-Catholic ethos of the past.
You are absolutely correct that the only way that a Unionist can regain the South Belfast Westminster seat is an agreed candidate.
However, I can’t see it at the moment. I can’t see how any Catholic could or would vote for the DUP (Spratt in particular). I know quite a few Protestants who wouldn’t vote for Spratt.
It’s obvious that Sinn Fein support is very low.
If the UU put up a reasonable, personable candidate (either not an OO member or someone who agrees with dialogue on contentious parades), they might get back quite a few Catholic votes from Anna Lo.
I’m afraid that Michael McGimpsey won’t do – he’s still got a lot of baggage for siding with the disgraceful protest about Catholics buying property in Donegal Pass.
However, even if the UU did do this, they would have to get agreement with the DUP and that won’t happen (especially for a reasonable middle-of-the-road candidate).
Personally I find McDonnell to be pompous and arrogant. However, he seems to have been a reasonable MP and I have not heard anyone claiming that he doesn’t represent all the constituents equally.
I honestly believe that the DUP will put up Spratt again, The UUP will have no option other than to put up their own candidate and, therefore, McDonnell is likely to get re-elected.
Billy,
What would the DUP need to do to win your vote?
The South Belfast result was not good for unionism in general, and SBW will surely accept that Michael’s chance of Westminster has now gone.
A good starting point would be a united unionist campaign to register more of our voters, and to explain the importance of transfers in PR elections.
Can any number cruncher out there explain where some of Jimmy Spratt’s secomd preferences went to on count 2? I am using the RTE website detailed results.
Can any number cruncher out there explain where some of Jimmy Spratt’s secomd preferences went to on count 2? I am using the RTE website detailed results.
Not really until someone puts the figures to 2 decimal places, as available at the count, on the web. At that stage, one can easily work out how many papers transferred from Spratt to each candidate and how many were non-transferrables. The BBC coverage of STV elections is usually hopeless anyway, but surely RTÉ might be able to work out that things are a bit different in ‘De Nart’?
But assuming few were non-transferrable, the DUP kept 82% within the party fold, which is good but not exceptional.
To : FD
Crikey – I wish I had never got involved with this : I said I was only posting to clarify a couple of points, and because of my last statement in that first post above, I get all this. Well I made that comment, so I suppose it’s my own fault!
First of all, I studied Maths and Statistics at University to Honours level so I don’t need to go back to any Maths teacher!! Also, I work in Marketing/Selling and Market research, and I have accurate tallys of all South Belfast elections since 1998, right down to the level of 1-2 streets/roads etc., so I know the political make-up of the constituency very well. These statistics are as equally well respected by the other parties to the extent I’ve had several approaches about sharing them. Now I know all that was a minor ego trip, but that’s the case
To answer your points :
1. The combined Unionist % is more than the nationalist %: Where do you get this from? & What do you mean by that? Is this based on the voting figures from last Wednesday? – If it is, you should go back to your Maths teacher. The combined Unionist vote last Wednesday was around 43%.
2. You can’t analyse on non-voters : everyone can do that – if all the non voters in West Belfast voted Unionist then we would probably have 2-3 Unionist assembly seats in West Belfast!! – If, If, If : It’s a big word in Life!
Of course we all know that Unionist apathy is a problem, and indeed my Tallies show that polling in Unionist ‘working class’ areas last week was down again, to as low as 48% in some areas – But you can’t mathematical extrapolate from that, and make assumptions about future behavior, because again the other partiers can do the same.
3. Yes & of course voter registration can provide extra votes – but again the nationalist parties can also use the same logic, and so again that cancels that point out. Frankly the Nationalist parties are much better at this than any of the Unionist parties & I don’t see that changing!!
4. Then your point re. 2000 extra voters – where do they come from : Mars?
Yes, Alliance will run for Westminster & so will Sinn Fein. However, the make-up of their voters is that they plump more (my statistics prove this) as they come from the more ‘sophisticated’ part of the South Belfast electorate (i.e. they think more about their voting) – so the Alliance vote will fall to about 2-2,500, and similarly for Sinn Fein, as they will know that McDonnell is the only nationalist with a realistic chance of retaining the seat. If you add all these factors in, and take into account that McDonnell is/will be the sitting MP, with the extra image/Kudos that brings, then he’s at 15,000 votes before you even start analysing the unionist vote.
If you want to go into all this in more detail, then I’m perfectly happy to meet-up : It’s just too difficult to go into all this in more detail here.
BTW : FD – You should also read Billy’s post directly after yours : It’s a good sensible analysis of the type of thinking that Unionists have to take account of in South Belfast.
Sammy,
It’s nothing to do with decimal places.
Spratt 4762
minus quota 4335
= 427
But only 379 went to other candidates. Where am I going wrong? That’s a huge % non-transferrable.
Compare with Dodds surplus in North Belfast, which transferred perfectly.
In all the number crunching flying around there’s one factor people haven’t commented on – this is a seat where in the past Ulster Unionist voters at council level have voted for McDonnell over and above their own hardline candidate. Faced with a realistic choice of DUP or McDonnell, how many Unionists would vote for the latter?
But only 379 went to other candidates. Where am I going wrong? That’s a huge % non-transferrable.
No, it’s everything to do with decimal places, I’m afraid. There is some automatic leakage in the system as it calculates the value of papers in a surplus to 2 decimal places.
Let’s say all of Spratt’s papers transfer. They transfer at a value of 0.08. However, the total value of 4762 papers transferring at 0.08 is 380.96 – i.e. a ‘non-transferrable’ value of 46.04 is created by rounding errors in the system. In general they are not significant to final results.
Look at Nicholas Whyte’s detailed ’98 and ’03 results for worked examples.
If 4737 papers transferred at 0.08 that would be, to the nearest vote, 379 votes worth transferring. You can’t make an accurate assessment of how many papers transferred until seeing the full results, with decimal places, but it’s reasonable to assume that Spratt’s surplus transferred at 0.08. I.e. between 4394 and 4406 papers transferred from Spratt to Stalford, a stupendous internal transfer rate of 92%. Genuinely first rate. Without seeing the full figures, I can’t tell you exactly, which is why I wish the &*@! media would publish them.
Bill, you can attribute whatever opinions you like to Martin about the fulsome support you were, uh, ‘offering’ to him 2004/5. You won’t get him to express them however. So away and catch yourself on: you wanted the Gimp; you got the Gimp; you lost the seat. And you don’t need to be Stephen Hawking to add all that up!
Pace Robert – I probably shouldn’t have mentioned any other individual in the association by name. My point, however, was simply (since you’re so fond of citing sums to abut political arguments) that, under some past chairmen, the association has had more members, and under others, well, Bill, rather less. And as you keep pointing out to us, numbers never lie. But Bill’s fundamental personal point is of course right, and whatever political differences may have existed between the pair of them, I would not for one moment suggest that there is personal emnity between e.g. him & Robert.
I would, though, seek to bring Bill back to the appaling state of the association, and the direct responsibility the divisive behaviour of Michael McGimpsey has for this. Bill White cannot, with the best will in the world, claim to have been one of those who accepted that (A) Michael would wreck the association, and that (B) once he had so very clearly done so, that there should be some actual political consequences for him. In fact, Bill positively argued for Michael, and has defended his conduct ever since. But then as far as I can see, in today’s UUP, screwing the whole place up is expected behaviour, not something you should ever have to pay a political price for.
All of which has been a long of way of saying: wee Jeffrey was right, and those of you who told us that he wasn’t are the very people who have brought about the 1 MP/18 MLA UUP. Well done David/Michael/Bill etcetera etcetera.
SBW
I am afraid you can’t see the wood for the trees. The analysis is superficial and is not thorough in its treatment of the available data. Go to Nick Whyte’s site. In particular look at the physical vote figures. Unionism regularly pulls in 15-17000 in South Belfast. In 2005 Unionism also managed a total majority and Alliance had pulled in your predicted 2-2500 votes, one candidate would have made McDonnell toast. Nationalism can get 13,000 when it pulls out all the stops and the SDLP 10,000. Unionism didn’t in 2007 because the DUP dropped the ball.
“Where do you get this from? & What do you mean by that? Is this based on the voting figures from last Wednesday? If it is, you should go back to your Maths teacher. The combined Unionist vote last Wednesday was around 43%.”
The 2007 Assembly election result. I mean the % vote for Unionist candidates was greater than the % votes for nationalist candidates. My maths tacher did just fine. The combined nationalist % was 40% in the Assembly election. Westminster is FPTP and many an MP is elected on 43% or less.
“You can’t analyse on non-voters”
That is not true. You cannot analyse regular non-voters on the basis of election results. However, you can identify first time non-voters, which is what I have done.
” Yes & of course voter registration can provide extra votes – but again the nationalist parties can also use the same logic, and so again that cancels that point out. Frankly the Nationalist parties are much better at this than any of the Unionist parties & I don’t see that changing!!”
No it doesn’t cancel that out. Nationalism has already been doing work on registration. Unionism hasn’t. Unionism will be working from a lower base and hence will reap greater returns for the effort.
“4. Then your point re. 2000 extra voters – where do they come from : Mars? ”
They come from south Belfast. They tend to only exercise their franchise for a Westminster election. It is why Unionism tends to pull in about 15000 in other elections but can get more in Westminster.
MP
I said Martin would have won the nomination from the association had he decided to run again in 2005 – I didn’t say I supported him.
As also said above, Martin knew this was the case at that time, so we can only presume that he made the decision to stand down for other reasons.
I note you didn’t comment on my point about Martin grooming a successor, and there’s a practical point here – Martin was in his mid-seventies at the time of the last Westminster election – do you/did you want the poor man to continue as MP until he’s 90?
In addition, my points above are/were related to winning elections in South Belfast. I’m not sure where this ‘state of the association’ argument came from. It’s important to note that political parties exist to win elections – That’s the one and only reason they exist! Frankly the vast majority of UUP members in South Belfast never knock a door at election time, or canvass a voter, they only turn up at meetings, and particularly selection meetings, and then you never see them again. I’m not sure what use these type of members are to any political party!
Personally, I couldn’t care less if the South Belfast UUP had only a few dozen members (instead of the 200-300 members registered at the moment), as long as these members were active members, and helped out at election time!
I didn’t comment on your suggestion that ‘Martin should have groomed a successor’ because it was too embarrassing for words. Or are you seriously suggesting that it either is, still less, should be the case that Unionist MPs hand pick their successors? As it was (and this is why I think your point verges from the idiotic to the near-disengenuous), my phone call from Martin was clear enough in 2005. I’ll give you a clue, Bill, he didn’t urge me to vote for Michael McGimpsey to be our Westminster candidate. You on the other hand did. Well you got your way, and we got the result we deserved with that individual. Can I as mildly as I can advise you to stop flogging this particular dead horse? The South Belfast Association has been wrecked; it was wrecked by factional supporters of Michael McGimpsey, who put his interests before those of Unionism; you were one of those supporters, and indeed still are a supporter of the Gimp’s, for pity’s sake.
This seat can easily again have a Unionist MP after the next Westminster election: you, Bill, have not exactly proven yourself, mathematically or otherwise, an expert at advising the rest of us on who that winning invidual should be. Really Bill, the amount of humble pie you ought to be eating should lead to a period of silence from you on this subject!
By the way, short of an act of God, we in the South Belfast UUP are going to be stuck with the Gimp as our candidate next time round. He’s already said that he’s going to, and the miserable rump of an association membership we’re left with is utterly dominated by his placemen. So, we can rule out Unionism winning the seat back via the UUP – and we can also rule out (as Unionist voters in SB are hardly fools) the Gimp getting anything more than a nugatory Cecil Walker-style result come 2009 (or whenever). Thus, as with just about everything else in Unionism at the moment, the ball’s in the DUP’s court. And to win the seat all they have to do is pick someone (i.e. not Spratt) who’ll charm catholics. Note, nice as it would be, s/he doesn’t actually need to win catholic votes, all s/he has to do is (by the very act of being gratuitously charming to catholics) reassure those more snobbish unionist voters in the seat that, in this time voting DUP, they won’t end up voting for an old school sectarian raver. OO membership has been raised above: far more important for the next Unionist MP for SB is that s/he should be a member of the right golf clubs, and be more than happy to be the only jaffa in some of his/her fourballs!
FD
Your first point makes a massive and highly dangerous assumption i.e. that to use the 2005 Westminster election as an example, you assume that all of Michael McGimpseys 7,200 votes would have went to Jimmy Spratt, if Michael hadn’t have run, and Jimmy was the only Unionist candidate. You may think, and assume this – I Don’t!!!
Again it’s a mathematical fact that a critical chunk of Michael McGimpseys 7,200 Westminster votes, must have voted for Anna Lo last Wednesday – as I say, this is a mathematical fact. Are you saying that all these voters would automatically vote for a DUP, or indeed a UUP candidate, at a Westminster election? Again, you may make this assumption – I don’t!
The Unionist % is ahead of the nationalist % – so what : What about the 17% who didn’t vote Unionist or Nationalist last Wednesday – that’s my original point, and particularly the 3,800 Alliance voters from last Wednesday. I go back to my key point which you disagreed with i.e. to win the seat for Unionism the Unionist candidate must get at least 1000 – 1,500 of those Anna Lo voters : I stand by my argument that this is a mathematical fact, and I can prove it to you if you want.
Non-Voters & First time voters : All I’m saying here is that all the other parties can make the same points & therefore you can’t statistically analyse anything from this. Are you saying/assuming that all first-time ‘Unionist type’ voters, once you get them registered, will just walk-out and vote for the DUP or UUP at a Westminster election. Fine – go ahead and make that assumption – again, I don’t!
Voter registration : Of course this is important, but this has nothing to do with the main statistical argument I was making. We both agree that Unionists are behind with this, and again you assume that some people within the DUP/UUP will get off their backsides and go out and make all this happen. All I can say is I’ve heard all this for years, and nothing ever happens – One wonders what all the DUP/UUP MLA advisors and office staff do between elections!?
Your last point is ridiculous : If there were 2000 extra voters at Westminster elections then there would be a significant difference in the overall Poll figures for Westminster and Stormont elections : There isn’t.
Don’t forget that McDonnell IS the MP, and will be able to use that to really build up his profile building up to a Westminster election. – It’s accepted that this is worth a few 1000 votes in itself!
Finally, I go back to my original point made yesterday afternoon which I’m sure we can both agree on – of course the South Belfast Westminster seat is winnable back for Unionism, but all I’m saying is there has to be some thought given to the candidate, and the overall approach to the South Belfast electorate. I’m sure we all agree that we have to have one Unionist candidate, – incidentally I said this before the last Westminster election and was laughed at by both the DUP and UUP, who with their arrogant approach thought it didn’t matter if we split the vote, there were so many Unionist voters in South Belfast that it wouldn’t matter. It did matter!!!
Whoever is the candidate there has to be some thought given as to how we get a chunk of that Anna Lo vote from last Wednesday, as well as holding on to the ‘traditional’ unionist vote – This has to be done to win the seat : Mathematical fact!.
Let me assure you that myself, and the South Belfast UUP, are ready and willing to assist with this task.
Bill
Will Michael ever be prepared to step aside?
Bill,
Why are trying to explain away the cock up made by the UUP leadership in 2005?
The DUP wanted a pact involving F&ST and SB, they were even willing to give the UUP a choice. SB would have been much much easier to hold than F&ST would have been to regain.
Why doesnt McGimpsey take the point and stand down?
SBW: Are you claiming that Ulster Unionist voters switched their votes to Anna Lo rather that the DUP? I’d say that this split either way, but McGimpsey’s vote collapsed – and this has even been raised by SB UUP member, Alex Kane in Friday’s NL.
McGimpsey should consider his position within the UUP. He has rocked this boat for far too long and is only standing for his own personal ego and to spite the DUP. He is no Unionist.
I think this has been a constructive thread. But I hope that many of the issues raised here will not be brushed under the carpet. It’s difficult to disagree with much of what has been written. Before Wednesday, the DUP may have thought that they would be able to bring Spratt easily enough into Westminster next time. The Assembly result should disabuse them. Spratt could well generate tactical voting against him, like Willie McCrea in Mid Ulster in 1997.
The UUP is also unable to win the seat back because McGimpsey, as pointed out ad nauseam, repels plenty of people. There’s a lot of hard work and harder thinking still to be done if the Good Doctor is to be booted out and it’s going to need all unionists to pull together. Is that too much to ask? No unionist has taken a Westminster seat off a nationalist since Ken Maginnis in 1983. It’s about time that particular record was broken. But I wonder if people in South Belfast are really up to the task or whether McDonnell will get another 5 years because unionists can’t get their act together.
Re The Gimp
Roll on the changes Sir Reg is planning for the UUP. I see that Cunningham House may make a list for Associations to chose from ,surely The Gimp will not be on this list. He is such a loser that he can,t even see that he is a complete liability.
He still maintains that South Belfast is a Ulster Unionist Seat.
The pompous Alister McDonnell is an awful M.P.
The DUP tried to organise a unity candidate before but The Gimp,s ego was too big, now that he just scraped home the ego probably hasn,t deflated. Bill White and members Ditch Him!
I doubt such changes can be brought about in the UUP.
They will not go through the UUC.
Plus, a candidate should be local, or at least known locally. I mean who would they pick, Tim Collins?
SBW
1. In 2005 the DUP candidate did not need all of the UUP’s vote to get ahead of McDonnell, 1250 or 17% of it was required. Also if the UUP wishes to maintain along-term future it would be much wiser to cut a deal with the DUP and soon.
2. Your claim is based on one poor result that is clearly out of sync with all other publicly available election data. The reasons for this odd result are easily recognisable and solvable.
3. You seem to be treating the data as if it is a STV election rather than FPTP. McDonnell took the seat with 32% of the vote.
As usual UU defeatism means only the worst possible outcome is possible rather than looking for and seeking the opportunities.
Further to my last post, SBW is surely right to say that any unionist winner in 2009 has to grab a chunk of Anna Lo’s vote from last Wednesday, as well as doing the right registration as advocated by Fair Deal. It mystifies me why a lot of this groundwork was not done in the past. Urban constituencies are often more politically volatile than rural ones because of greater voter inflow and outflow.
I am glad that Bill White has not resumed his eccentric train of thought that Unionist MPs should be in the habit of picking their own successors. His latest peculiar claim: that he was a leading exponent of cutting a deal in 2005 is a startling one, for those of us who who remember his actions in the association back then. But if that’s how he wants now to remember the past, that’s up to him. Incidentally, ‘the other one’, which should be heartily pulled at this point, has Big Ben-sized bells on.
Much more seriously, it’s a depressing thing to think – if you’re a member of UUP, obviously – that there is now not one single House of Commons seat in the province where we can credibly claim to be the leading contender for Unionism. Not even North Down. And certainly not SB (see critiques of the Gimp ad nauseam, on Slugger, and just about everywhere, as to why SB Ulster Unionism is in the satte it’s currently in). Yet it is even more depressing that it’s completely certain that if the DUP have to pick between the total numbers of Unionists going to Westminster rising by one next time, or, there being no UUP MPs at all, they’ll go for the latter, and to hell with whatever that means for overall Unionist representation. (To any DUPer who disagrees with that claim, just show me even a single instance where your party has put the wider good of Unionism before your fratricidal urge to do us down?)
It strikes me that we (the UUP in SB, whatever our sodding useless party HQ says) should seize this nettle now: we should openly say that we will run a “joint” candidate with the SB DUP, but that, naturally enough, there has to be a truly joint, and local, selection process. At the very least, we will wrongfoot the DUP if we offer first, and sincerely, to do this. It is also (should we end up by getting ‘half a candidate’ this way) the solitary fashion in which I can foresee there being any sort of Ulster Unionist in the next House of Commons.
I’m no fan of McDonnell, but I would vote for him over anyone the DUP put up, simply because I find the party’s stance on a number of issues distasteful. If the UUP can come up with a good alternative, I think many people could be persuaded to vote for them. But not McGimpsey. Time to let someone else have a go.
Here’s a tip – get someone who can appear rational and concerned, without being patronisingly middle class and steer clear of the thorny issues which plague the DUP as being rampantly bigoted and insular. Focus on the issues people are interested in, like jobs, homes and education. And stop being so defensive.
Animus
I’d agree with you on the ‘issues’ and South Belfast subject.
The focus on ‘soft’ Unionism in South Belfast has more appeal that the ‘hard-hitting’ Paisleyism style. Local issues play great with people. (Just look at McDonnell and the SDLP’s PR machine on rates etc. in the constituency)
The threat of a change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland doesn’t perturb people, although there are some ‘hard-nosed’ areas of the constituency where this has an effect. The middle Unionist-classes feel safe in their identity and in the position of NI in the UK.
Martin Smyth was MP until 2005. But he was a man of his time, living in a different generation.
I would not and could not vote McDonnell. He is ridiculous. He has the image of a typical political; one word ‘sleazy’.
Candidates are a problem for unionists in this constituency.
Spratt is an unpleasant man who is incapable of pulling in a big vote. And it seems McGimpsey’s star has fallen. Someone new is needed who can appeal beyond the Protestant volk. After all, South Belfast is one of the most middle-class of constituencies – if unionists are going to win middle-ground votes anywhere, surely it is here?
The other big problem for unionism in the constituency is the Protestant population decline.
I’ll try and answer all the points made by various contributors in one go :
IC
I’m not trying to explain away the cock-up made by the UUP leadership in 2005.
A person of my lowly status in the UUP wouldn’t be involved with such a decision – I didn’t even know a deal was being discussed until it hit the media, and I found out the same way as everyone else. What I’m trying to do now is look forward – 2005 happened, McDonnell is now the MP (a fact that FD seems to not realise!), and we have to now plan how to win the seat back.
Observer
Yes – I am claiming that UUP voters who had previously voted for McGimpsey switched last Wednesday and voted for Anna Lo – I’ve made this point several times, and we have to win a chunk of these votes back if Unionism is going to regain the SB Westminster seat. I don’t know what you mean by ‘split either way’? Yes, McGimpseys vote collapsed mainly because of the switch to Anna Lo already mentioned.
Ca Va.
I agree with you totally – I’ve been preaching this to the UUP in Cunningham House for years i.e. central list of approved candidates etc. etc.
Hopefully, this will come about – though Observer is correct in saying that the current UUC structure is a problem as well.
FD
This will be my last post on this subject as frankly your arguments are just getting silly. You quote that it would require 17% of McGimpseys vote to go to Spratt in 2005 to overtake McDonnell – OK, so what? : What’s the point here? This is now 2007 & McDonnell is now the MP and will have a much increased vote at the next Westminster election because of all the factors I’ve already mentioned in the posts above.
One poor result & we should just ignore it : OK, This sounds awfully like the old Trimbleist UUP arguments – Just ignore the 2001 Westminster election, it was a ‘One-Off’, and then let’s ignore the European election because it was also a ‘One Off’ (NB a senior UUP member said to me at that time – ‘You can’t really count European elections’!!), and then the same old stuff again after the 2003 Assembly elections, and then they all carried head-long into the disastrous 2005 elections. It should worry you that your thinking now seems to be along exactly the same lines. I like your expression that all these factors for this ‘odd result’ are ‘easily recognisable and solvable’ – That expression rolls off the tongue very easily. OK you go ahead and solve them then, if everything is so easy!!! – I don’t have the same confidence as you!
In addition, one point I didn’t mention before is the rapid ongoing demographic changes in South Belfast – for Unionism these are frightening, and are running against Unionism all the time, and at an increasing rate : FD – You should also factor this into your analysis.
FD – Also read Observers and Watchmans posts as they are very good & back-up my views.
MP
It is perfectly normal practice for MP’s, & other elected representatives to groom successors NB I said groom – not choose successors : The party organisation would have the last say. Ian Paisley is grooming his son to take over the N. Antrim Westminster seat, Jim Molyneaux was grooming Edgar Graham to take over his seat until Edgar’s tragic death – Jim Molyneaux actually said this himself at the time!
MP : What’s your problem with this? – It’s perfectly normal practice in any walk of life e.g. Managing Directors of companies coming up to retirement groom and train successors over a No. of years so that when they retire they know the business can carry on smoothly. Maybe Martin did try to do this to an extent – I know he did try and encourage Arlene Foster at one stage to consider South Belfast!
Also I wasn’t a ‘leading exponent of a deal in 2005’ : As I said above, I didn’t know anything about it until I read about it in the media – all I said at the time was that the seat could not be won on a split Unionist vote, and I was laughed at by both the DUP & UUP.
Now look guys, I only came on Slugger to correct a factual error (see my first post last Sunday), and as such this will be my last post for the time being : Not because you’re not all really nice people, but I just don’t have the time – unlike all the MLA’s, and their advisors, I don’t make a penny out of my political activities, and I have a real job to hold down! So if you want to answer the above points, and have the last say, then you’re most welcome!
Kind Regards to all!
SBW
I meant by the ‘vote splitting either way’ that some of McGimpseys votes went to Anna Lo, Alliance and some to the DUP.
Thanks for your contribution and lets hope that Unionism can go about getting South Belfast right at the next election.
Bill, you’ve made enough of a laughing stock of yourself: MPs should ‘groom’ successors! And you attack Martin for his supposed failure to do so on the basis of, Jim Molyneaux once having said something nice to the late Edgar Graham (!!), and, er, the Big Mon’s grisly (and hardly even certain then, unless he gets it done while he’s still alive) dynastic ambitions in NA. So yet again leaving to one side whether we as Unionists should wish to see MPs ‘grooming’ their successors (and we bloody well should not!), you can’t actually produce one solitary example in all the history of the province since partition where it’s supposed to have actually happened! Unbelievable. And folks, had Martin been foolish enough to try it on in anything like the way Bill here claims he would have approved of, the Gimp would have had few more devoted supporters than Bill here in denouncing such nepotism. And we know that because? Er, it’s what happened.
For those of you outside the introverted – and much diminished – world of Ulster Unionism in South Belfast, let me state again for the record. In 2005, Bill White, then secretary of our association, campaigned for Michael McGimpsey to be selected as the candidate, was opposed to Martin remaining our candidate (‘he’s past it’ being one repeated remark), and will be utterly unable to return to this thread with any on-the-record evidence that he, as an officer of the association, wanted Trimble to make the FST/SB deal Paisley offered.
I’m not sure what ambition Bill is pursuing by coming along here and posting such stuff, but can I assure him, he’s not furthering it, whatever it is.