DUP outrage over boundary plans

Published Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Toggle font size

In a fierce attack over proposed constituency boundary changes, the DUP has accused the commission responsible of "gerrymandering".

DUP outrage over boundary plans
Peter Robinson leader of DUP (© UTV)

The Boundary Commission plans to reduce the number of Westminster seats in Northern Ireland from 18 to 16 - prompting concerns in some areas which would be reassigned.

Among the controversial proposals are the removals of Ballymena and Coleraine from their current North Antrim and East Londonderry constituencies - moves described as "brutal" by the DUP.

Ballymena would form part of the newly created Mid-Antrim constituency, joining Larne, Carrickfergus and Glenarm - while outlying villages, such as Broughshane and Portglenone, would remain in North Antrim.

Areas including Carnlough, Cushendall and Cushendun would no longer be designated to East Antrim, instead also joining North Antrim.

Overall the commission's proposals have a disproportionately negative impact upon unionism. The effect permeates the proposals, leading to the conclusion that it is no accident.


On the North Coast, the Triangle area of Coleraine, Portrush and Portstewart would join the North Antrim constituency - amid plans to scrap East Londonderry and replace it with a new Glenshane constituency and the re-designated Foyle.

The DUP expressed further concern over changes affecting Belfast - where the current four constituencies would be replaced by just three, at the expense of the SDLP-held South Belfast seat.

A new South East Belfast constituency would omit the mainly unionist Dundonald and Braniel areas.

"The term gerrymander is one that should not be quickly or lightly thrown about by anyone," the party said of the proposals.

"However, in terms of the proposed South East Belfast, the DUP feels that it can legitimately be used - both in terms of the boundary with South West (Belfast) and Strangford."

The Boundary Commission - which, under the rules of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, "may take into consideration any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies" - has rejected the DUP smear.

A spokesman said: "We conducted our business properly and thoroughly in accordance with the procedures laid down in the legislation and the outcome of elections is none of our business."

The SDLP also opposed the loss of the South Belfast seat, currently held by Alasdair McDonnell.

"This will severely reduce the impact that Belfast, as the economic driver and the largest city in the north of Ireland, has - and goes against previous Boundary Commission recommendations which ensured that Belfast retain its four seats," the party's submission said.

After a 12-week public consultation on the boundary proposals, 38 representations were received by the commission - a further four-week consultation is now underway.

Views are invited up until February 27 and final proposals are expected in 2013, either by spring or early summer.

© UTV News
Comments Comments
Mason Boyne in belfast wrote (1,089 days ago):
Peter Robinson would be better off worrying about his Gerry Pandering than gerrymandering!
thomas in Portadown wrote (1,089 days ago):
These constituencies should be kept the same within Northern Ireland, as they are fine the way they are. If they want to reduce the amount of MPs, how about stripping Sinn Fein of two of their seats, as even though they are moving on and so fondly tell others to do so, they still won't sit in Westminster, yet they are happy to claim the Queens money. Lol
Dave in Down wrote (1,089 days ago):
The Nationalist comments, though not surprising given that they are obsessed over their own biased interpretation of history. They might want to look up some information on the past gerrymandering of Newry by Nationalists.
Adrian in Flown the nest wrote (1,089 days ago):
Almost every party has critised these boundary changes which is one of the few times there has been a cross community concensus at Stormont. The problem is that I think they are only complaining as they want to protect their own positions. Being seen to argue on behalf of their constituents is a good vote winner meaning an extra councillor or mla will get in next time. The only party I haven't heard critise it is the UUP but "When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose." In reality 1/2 MPs one way or another would only ever matter to the people collecting the salary or in the unlikely event that Lab/Con are a few seats short of a majority. In the era of modern technology there is no need for so many MPs. Smaller parties will lose their independent voice as a MP but the internet opens up alternative methods to share your views without the need for vast public support.
Derry man in United Kingdom wrote (1,089 days ago):
Ha hahahahahaha The unionist would know all about this type of carry on, they invented it spent 40 years telling us it did not happen now they cry out " its been done to us " i could not make this tripe up what a bunch of idiots they are
Email address*:    
House Rules:  
Your Comment:  
[All comments are moderated and will not appear immediately. Your name, location and comment will be displayed on this page if your post passes moderation.]
January snow
Tue 13 January 2015
Wed 07 January 2015
Charity on trial
Mon 19 January 2015