1 / 30

The Intra-Party Dynamics of the Ulster Unionist Party: an ecological approach

The Intra-Party Dynamics of the Ulster Unionist Party: an ecological approach. Main Research Questions. What is the social profile of the Ulster Unionist Party? Which variables best predict support for the Good Friday power-sharing agreement within the UUC?. The Northern Ireland Context.

jeff
Download Presentation

The Intra-Party Dynamics of the Ulster Unionist Party: an ecological approach

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Intra-Party Dynamics of the Ulster Unionist Party: an ecological approach

  2. Main Research Questions • What is the social profile of the Ulster Unionist Party? • Which variables best predict support for the Good Friday power-sharing agreement within the UUC?

  3. The Northern Ireland Context • Dominant party in Northern Ireland from 1921 until 29 November, 2003 • The Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) - British sovereignty; speaks for Protestant majority • Regular division within UUP since late 60s • O' Neillism (late 60s), Sunningdale (1973-4), Anglo-Irish Agreement (1986), Good Friday Agreement (1998)

  4. UUC Structure • Governing body of UUP is the Ulster Unionist Council (UUC) - Very powerful. Makes policy and decides fate of leadership • Splits within UUC after 1998 (pro/anti) • Approximately 900 delegates • UUC subdivided into constituency (17) and affiliated body (10) sections • Voting rights: Constituencies - 75%, Orange Order - 15%, Other Bodies - 10%

  5. Methodology: why geodemographics? • Survey research almost totally dominant in social sciences • Neglect of geographical approaches due to 'fallacy of the ecological fallacy' re explaining social behaviour • Surveys often weak in terms of geographical and other vital contextual factors • Surveys fail among 'sensitive' groups

  6. Methodology: geodemographic synergies with other strategies • Geodemographics can provide individual level, as well as various contextual level data (difficult today to cross-reference with city directories, valuation rolls, etc) • Can work in conjunction with census data • Can augment survey research strategies

  7. Previous Survey Research • Late 2000 Survey of UUC (Tonge & Evans 2001; 2002). 1/3 response rate • Social Profile in terms of age, education, gender, income, occupation, county of residence • No sense of comparison with Orange mass membership. Recent Orange survey - almost no response • MOSAIC data allows us to circumvent this

  8. Previous Survey Research • Mixed results: Orange Order membership and age were clearly important (p < .001) • R2 = .1 predicting 1998 vote and .03 in predicting 'Vote Today' • Concluded that division lay between 'Orange skeptics' and 'rational civics' • An Orange survey might alter this finding, but, again, almost no response

  9. Research Strategy • Party List (gender, title, postcode, section) • Strategists assign vote (pro/anti-GFA) • MOSAIC classifications assigned to party members • NI MOSAIC score 1-27 (status), 30-36 (rural) • MOSAIC group and score used in multi-level and fixed-effects logistic regressions

  10. Table 1: The Social Profile of the UUC and Orange Order by MOSAIC Classification (99% sample) % Top 12 Rural 8 Bottom 7 Nonrural Top 12 Nonrural Bottom 7 N Freemason officebearers 67.8% 15.5% 8.0% 80.2% 9.4% 766 Orange bloc UUC delegates 45.7% 36.2% 12.4% 71.6% 19.4% 105 UUC delegates total 44.3% 35.9% 8.4% 69.0% 13.1% 879 Grand Orange Lodge officebearers 34.7% 44.4% 9.7% 62.5% 17.5% 144 Northern Ireland population average 32.5% 18.1% 22.9% 39.6% 27.9% 1.6m Orange Order (lodge) officebearers 32.4% 43.9% 12.4% 57.7% 22.1% 1429

  11. Table 2: UUC Social Profile (Party Section), by MOSAIC Classification (99% sample) % Top 12 % Rural % Bottom 7 % Nonrural Top 12 % Nonrural Bottom 7 N East Belfast 81.6% 0.0 % 0.0% 81.6% 0.0% 38 North Down 74.3% 5.7% 11.4% 78.8% 12.1% 34 South Antrim 63.8% 23.4% 6.4% 83.3% 8.3% 47 MLAs 60.0% 28.0% 8.0% 83.3% 11.1% 25 Strangford 59.6% 21.3% 10.6% 75.7% 13.5% 47 UUC total 44.3% 35.9% 8.4% 69.0% 13.1% 879

  12. Findings: Postcode Profiling • Major status difference between Orange leadership/membership and Orange UUC delegates • UUC profile is elderly and elite • Explains why Protestant alienation from the UUP may be greater than from the Orange • Explains why many Orange leaders and a majority of the membership wish to break the link with the UUC while Orange UUC delegates do not

  13. Orange/Non-Orange Differential in Support for the Agreement

  14. Orange Skeptics?: Protestant Working-Class Area, Co. Armagh

  15. Non-Traditional Middle Class (East Belfast)

  16. Traditional Middle Class (Co. Tyrone)

  17. Findings: Ecological Approach • Contextual factors explain most of the variance (party section, geography of residence) • Sectional and Geographic splits within Orange and Elected members is critical • Big difference between UUC delegates who happen to be Orange and those who represent the Orange • Implications of breaking UUC-Orange link

  18. Conclusion • Use of MOSAIC categories improves accuracy of social profile and reaches difficult groups • Geographic approach greatly improved predictive power of model (R2 from .03 to .257) • Suggests that key division for the GFA is not between Orange skeptics and 'rational civics' but between 'traditionalist'/non-'traditionalist' (whether Orange or not)

  19. END

More Related