Thursday, February 14, 2008
Rumours from Dromore..
I can’t confirm these figures yet Looks to be confirmed now, but Porlock in the comments zone here has claimed had the first round count at Dromore as Updated below And Newsletter now reporting similar figures Update BBC reporting a UUP win! [added link]
1st Round : DUP 1069
UUP 912
TUV 739
All 357
SF 350
SDLP255[NL figure is 290]
Green 59
Adds From UTV report
MEP Jim Allister of the TUV said he was delighted with the result. He said the result was “an unhappy Valentine`s Day for the Chuckle Brothers”.
Alternatively From the Belfast Telegraph report
UUP deputy leader, Danny Kennedy, described the result as “a St Valentine’s Day massacre for the DUP”.
Update Again via Porlock
SDLP and Green eliminated
DUP 1074
UUP 937
TUV 742
SF 507
ALL 479Now into third count with transfer of Alliance
And
Alliance transfers done
DUP
11271074It appears the original figure may have been correct - 1127
UUP 1119
TUV 801
SF 567SF now eliminated
More
Latest: after SF transfer
DUP 1178
UUP 1194
TUV 828TUV now eliminated
Final count appears to be
DUP 1508
UUP 1571
UUP win the seat.
Pete Baker @ 09:23 AM
ulidian,
I’m happy for you to gloat as loudly and as long as you please…. I’m happy to be judged on what I’ve said and I don’t believe it constitutes any toy throwing…The TUV have every right to be pleased - a good result, but they have to look at whether the vote was protest or actual support for what the TUV stand for. That comes back to my earlier point about TUV implosion - its fine when you don’t actually pinpoint your policies and their ultimate objective, or if you just plain don’t have any policies other than opposing the status quo. Yes the DUP traded for a period post 1998 but ultimately you’re forced to make a decision for yourself and outline what you’d do differently - and more importantly, what you’d do that is actually achievable.
Now that Jim Allister has said loud and clear that they’re a party and that contesting elections is what they do the TUV will be rightly asked to defend their position as all political parties have to (but not simple pressure groups) and to actually outline what their policies are. Its when that starts to develop that strains in the TUV could start to become more evident. I still believe that there is aat least a difference in emphasis amongst many different strands there - and in reality its a real difference in fundamentals with many who would never take SF into Government under any circumstances, others who don’t want nationalists in Government plain and simple and others who just want some more issues sorted out prior to Government. Those issues will implode the membership of the TUV - and the various strengths of those views are not replicated in the people who voted for Harbinson. Frankly, I believe Willie Ross and his view on devolution are light years away from most of the people who voted for the TUV. Similarly with Roy Gillespie and co and when the strains start to show internally with the TUV that will pose them problems with the types of people who did go out and vote for Harbinson.
I don’t believe the vote for the TUV was entirely/or even largely a pro-TUV vote because they have nothing to vote for. Therefore it was either an anti-DUP vote or a DUP protest vote. It probably contains degrees of both but I would hazard that the larger section are those who are miffed with the perception of how the FM/DFM thing has been handled and any associated pictures etc you want to point to. They probably havent liked issues around perceptions of politicians being in it for their own personal gain (substantiated or not). Those are not issues which should keep them away from the DUP permanently - although I’m not saying that those people won’t just stop voting DUP - just that all things being equal they should be able to be won back.
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 04:04 PMHonestly, try living in the real world. You know, the one with partition and the Union and minister Martin at Stormont, bought and paid for by London. Cheer yourself by all means with your ‘yets’ and your ‘interims’, but let’s not try kidding the rest of us.
Well I must say, the really enjoyable thing about the continued existence of partitionist institutions is the pleasure one gets from watching when every election turns out badly for the Unionists. Even, in this case, an election which they were preordained to win. I wouldn’t miss it for the world. It’s like watching your football team make its way from the bottom to the top of the Division. Compared to this, a United Ireland will be rather boring.
Now they’re not even certain they’re going to win the EU elections next year! And they’re voting to punish the DUP for allowing ‘terrorists into government’: net result: Marty is promoted to 1st minister! What a hoot!
Pleasure deferred is pleasure augmented.
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 04:08 PMWhat a place. A pokey wee hole like Dromore and all this dispute over tribal and inter-tribal politics.
When will we ever get a politics not attached to competing nationalism and small-minded introspective sectarianism?
Answers on a postcard to President Mugabe, 1 Main Street, Dromore (half day closing on Wednesdays, so don’t post on a Tuesday), Co. Drowning in Boredom, Sectarianopolis, UK, Six Counties, The North, Over there…he’s behind you etc.
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 04:10 PMInterested,
your 5.04 comment highlights the main problem with the sustainability of the TUV.
When the initial meetings were taking place, was it not stressed that any new movement was precisely that and not a formal political party? Most likely this came to pass because of the inherent nature of the TUV, a loose federation of people who stand for completely different things who are just in this to give Paisley a bloody nose.
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 04:28 PMClosing the stable door after the horse has bolted comes to mind…..
The TUV has nothing positive to offer,only the politics of the past, politics which got all of us no where…
their appeal will be limited, who in their right mind wants to reverse all the changes which have given everyone in this society a modicum of normalcy…but then again, it seems the TUV have set themselves as the Vanguard of the Vanguard…..
NO NO NO….
If it comes to voting for the TUV and possibility losing Unionist seats to Nationalists….
like big Bob, the TUV will just fade and fade…
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 04:39 PMInterested, I’m happy to concede that TUV has plenty of thinking to do about its future, and also that I have not the faintest idea about its internal workings. However, that’s not important today. This was supposed to be the day when the DUP buried its fiercest critics, and we can all agree that things turned out rather differently. So there’s obviously votes from attacking the DUP from the right, a point I made in an op-ed piece for Slugger way back in June 2005.
The big question facing Allister is how to move TUV from being a home for refuseniks and political strays into a dynamic and credible right-wing unionist party. He is also going to have to say whether his party seeks election to an Assembly in order to destroy it or whether he wants TUV to be a player inside the system, regardless of his loathing for it. Such questions could well splinter TUV sooner rather than later. However, nothing is more likely to unify the different elements than the real prospect of future success, a prospect that didn’t exist a day ago.
Papa Doc is doing his best to help Allister and those internal critics considering the post-Paisley future with his now customary blether in response to the defeat. No wonder his spin-doctors try to keep him under lock and key as every time he opens his mouth he shows just how out of touch with ordinary unionists he has become. But that’s what happens when you become the establishment unionist party and Papa, of all people, should know that.
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 04:43 PMwatchman:
do you not think a strong vol coalition policy message ‘secularises’ tuv and could make uup a little more relevant?
could also create common ‘policy’ ground to legitimise the tuv/uup transfers - perhaps uup could focus on eating into the tuv’s 60/40 I dont know but approx) uup transfer rate and allow uupers to feel a little more ‘comfortable’ tuv transfering?
dups have been trying to reinforce their vol coalition stance, but from my view tends to fail due to incessant chuckling.
just a thought
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 04:55 PMPaddyReilly
how exactly is Banbridge District Council a “partitionist institutions”?
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 05:02 PMHow exactly is Banbridge District Council a “partitionist institution”?
I don’t know, ask Ahem and others of the “You’re only administering British rule” school.
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 05:24 PMTimothy Bryce,
Yes to both questions. I wonder whether Allister would want to explore any possible common ground with the UUP. At present the DUP benefits from fragmented and ineffective unionist opposition, even despite today’s setback. I have long been unconvinced about the DUP’s capabilities. We could do with a united and cohesive alternative.
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 05:24 PM“UUP HQ to complete investigation into ‘illegality’ of UUP Council Candidate Carol Black.”
Amen to that!
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 05:29 PMHere’s another way on analysing the results:
DUP 28.6%
UUP 24.4%
TUV 19.8%
APNI 9.5%
SF 9.4%
SDLP 6.8%
GP 1.6%If this had been an election for all 5 of Dromore’s Seat the amout of quotas each party would have would be:
DUP 1.71Q
UUP 1.46Q
TUV 1.18Q
APNI 0.57Q
SF 0.56Q
SDLP 0.41Q
GP 0.09QClearly Each unionist party would have one seat each.
SDLP transfers would determine whether SF or APNI take one of the seats.
With the last seat between the DUP & UUP.
I expect the nationalist vote would stay tight and SF would take the 4th seat. The Alliance would be eliminated and the UUP, with TUV help would just make the last one. If not, then SF would be eliminated and their votes would elect APNI and the second DUP
This is highly speculative, balancing of candidates and higher turnouts would affect the result. The latter would probably reduce the percentage of TUV and Alliance votes. However TUV could be reasonably certain of a seat, despite some of the mindless optimism on here the Alliance would be less so
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 05:44 PMThis is not really a good vote for the DUP or UUP the UUP share of the vote is down and is actually there lowest ever the DUP votes lost is a disaster for them, both the DUP and UUP need to watch out Unionism could be heading for a disaster if the vote is split three ways in any Assembly or Westminster election maybe voters should consider this?
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 06:02 PMWell I guess, as usual, those pesky voters got it all wrong. Will they never learn?
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 06:15 PMThe DUP didn’t become the lead unionist party over night. The generated momentum at every election since the by-election in South Antrim after the death of Clifford Forsythe. Also they were in opposition during a time when the IRA had not decomissioned any weapons and SF were not supporting the Police and justice system. Does Allister really have the political skills to lead a significant political party.
Fair play to TUV for giving the DUP a bloody nose and getting the UUP elected.
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 07:30 PMPaul when the hell where DUP ever an Official Opposition party. In the previous Assembly’s a definately recall DUP MLA’s sitting as ministers. You can’t be Opposition when you have ministers in the Executive.
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 08:03 PMAhem - on STV
Someone who voted 1 Green, 2 Alliance, 3 SDLP, 4 Sinn Fein, 5 UUP (not entirely incredible) may find her vote has been counted 4 times.
But her vote has only counted once.
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 09:08 PMThis wasn’t an STV election and so not a proportional result.
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 09:33 PMPay attention ClasS.
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 09:38 PMThe Cork man
Leitrim used to have a handy enough team.
Posted by on Feb 14, 2008 @ 10:00 PMThanks to Willowfield for the stats.
Bad result for DUP - good result for TUV.
Respectable result for UUP - not overly squeezed by DUP/TUV fight.
Alliance did well - which must be worrying for the UUP as I think this must reflect on Alliances success in positioning itself as opposition and the profile it has received from this?Posted by on Feb 15, 2008 @ 08:11 AMHowever TUV could be reasonably certain of a seat, despite some of the mindless optimism on here the Alliance would be less so
Yes, and according to you on Wednesday night, the Greens were going to beat us…
FWIW, I wouldn’t guarantee the DUP’s chance of holding two seats on those figures. The SDLP and Green transfers (we know what way they went) would almost certainly put Alliance and SF ahead of the second DUP candidate. Also, I know what way the UUP transfers were going and there were enough there to get us close to the quota in a full council election. The one set of transfers I didn’t tally properly were TUV’s which turned out to be a serious tactical mistake that made me look like a plonker in front of Eamonn Mallie and Noel McAdam!!!
Optimism, perhaps. Mindless, no.
Posted by on Feb 15, 2008 @ 12:31 PMBut, rj, that’s *precisely* where you’re wrong - if the illustrative vote you posit had only counted once, it would have counted as a vote for the Greens (just as the theoretical DUP vote I suggested earlier only counted once). But, in your telling example, the voter who voted as you suggest, got to have his vote count up to 5 times, as it kept time after time biting at the cherry until it ended up being tallied. In other words, your Green->Alliance->SDLP->Sinn Fein->UUP voter got fully five goes, whereas, in this example, the dullard DUP voter got one goe. That’s neither fair, let alone democratic.
Posted by on Feb 15, 2008 @ 12:36 PMAhem: that second ‘goe’ is positively Quaylian.
Posted by on Feb 15, 2008 @ 12:38 PM
