300 likes | 468 Views
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.
E N D
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 • 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)
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%
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)