On the question of whether the constitutional dispute defines Scottish politics: No, since there was no third seat for the SNP.
On the question of whether Labour is now no more important in Scotland (no less so, but no more, either) than the Tories or the Lib Dems: No, since Labour held on to its second seat.
On the question of whether the Unionist community in Northern Ireland endorses the UUP's deal with the Tories (with everything that then follows): Yes, since Jim Nicholson has kept his seat.
On the question of whether the SDLP still serves any purpose, watch this space, although the fact that this is still unclear even on the day that Sinn Féin got someone elected on the first count does not augur well at all. Where did Sinn Féin's second preference votes go, in that case?
On the question of the continued existence of the BNP: Yes, most unfortunately.
On the question of the Political and Media Classes' attitude to the white working class: No, since the most white working-class region gave hardly any votes to the BNP. This would not necessarily have followed anyway. The membership list published not so long ago showed a high concentration here in County Durham (ninety-nine per cent White British at the last census), and especially in the east, where the District of Easington, uniquely in the country, was one hundred per cent White British.
And on the question of the continued existence of the Bloc Parties: a resounding No. The Tory figure was a pathetic twenty-eight per cent of thirty-five per cent, and the Labour and Lib Dem figures were utterly laughable. As the newest member of the Government (or as good as) might put it, "You're fired".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Obviously the full examination of the second preference votes in "Norn Iron" has not taken place but as Sidney Elliott from QUB was very visible at the count so the number crunching can begin.
ReplyDeleteThe tally men reports on various blogs are interesting.
About 60% of SF-IRA transfers seem to have been marked to sdlp with about 5% going to AP/Green but a high number around 35% were not transferrable. A small but significant number went to Allister (he got my #3 as the man most likely t destroy unionism).
About 70% of SDLP transfers seem to have gone to SF-IRA and maybe up to 15% going Green or AP.
They had fewer non transferrable votes.
The French should have a neat form of words for "the more things change the more they stay the same" as thats predictably what happened.
2009 results compared to 2004:
SF-IRA 26% (2004 26%)
SDLP 16% (2004 16%)
UUP 17% (2004 16.5%)
DUP 18% (2004 32%)
TUV 13.6% (effectively the balance of 32% in 2004)
Green 3.2% (2004 1%)
Alliance 5.5% (2004 they did not stand but backed a candidate who got 6.6%)
Thus REpublicans are basking in the (temporary) glory of topping the poll and enjoying the thre way split in Unionism.
Allisters incumbency was probably worth a few percentage points but there is a considerable anti Agreement unionist vote.
DUP were hit badly by expenses scandal and a relunctance to give another salary to another DUP dynasty (Paisley Robinson Dodds).
Yet where do they go now? Most are imbedded too deeply into the Govt to back out of it.
But Allister will be a thorn in their side. He is resourced well enough to take votes off DUP at Westminster and Stormont level.
Unionism has nowhere left to go.
SF - "a high number around 35% were not transferrable."
ReplyDeleteSDLP - "About 70% of SDLP transfers seem to have gone to SF-IRA and maybe up to 15% going Green or AP. They had fewer non transferrable votes."
Says it all, really. With friends like that...
"there is a considerable anti Agreement unionist vote"
Then where is it?
"a relunctance to give another salary to another DUP dynasty"
Why is this suddenly a problem now?
"Unionism has nowhere left to go."
Well, except into the mainland parties, as endorsed strongly by the Unionist community in its re-election of Jim Nicholson.
Allisters vote of 14% was "considerable" and some of Dodds vote was "soft"....it can be targetted.
ReplyDeletethe ridiculous merger of Conservative and UUP produced a whopping increase in their vote of........er half of one per cent.
Not exactly world shattering.
The expenses scandal focussed peoples minds much more than before.
But there was always a feeling that DUP were greedy. with the power sharing arrangement rewarded senior figures like campbell, wilson, dodds, donaldson and of course robinson dual mandate DID become an issue..long before the Daily Telegraph. It was fuelled by leaks from disgruntled DUP/TUV types.
Rather obviously the expenses scandal is set against a background of an economic downturn.
where next for unionism......well indeed........cant say I care.
"Not exactly world shattering"
ReplyDeleteWell, Nicholson went from third place to second. The Unionist electorate is clearly unmoved by the dispute between the DUP and the TUV, which is increasingly like one of those disputes between rival Trotskyist operations, of absolutely no interest to ordinary working-class or left-leaning voters.
Er no......Nicholson came THIRD.
ReplyDeleteHe was elected second....completely different.....on the coat trails of others.
That's the system. You yourself have said that you have to make it work for you. Clearly, he did.
ReplyDeleteThe anti Agreement Unionist vote was 66,000. Its considerable.
ReplyDeleteThe electorate was 1.2 million.
In another constituency with 1.9 million electorate, the No2EU got 8,066 votes.
If 66,000 votes is not "considerable" then I think we can agree that 8,066 votes in a constituency twice norn irons size.....is pretty pathetic.