The Decline of the UUP?: an electoral analysis

Main Research Questions• What individual characteristics

(background, attitudinal) best predict support for the UUP in the Assembly Elections of 2001 [NI Election Study]

• What aggregate characteristics (census, electoral, Orange) best predict support for the UUP in District Council elections, 1993-2001 [Ecological Regression]

• Is there an 'Orange vote' and which party benefits [Ecological Regression]

Party Support, Protestant Electorate, 2001 (N = 403)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

uup

dup

didn't

vote

allian

ce

dk, r

efus

ed sdlp

othe

ruk

up pup

niwc

Party Support (voters only), Protestants, 2001 (N = 313)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

uup dup alliance sdlp other ukup pup niwc

Predictors of Support for the UUP in the 2001 Election (Protestants only), by Wald Test Statistic

05

1015202530

Age (+)

Education level vs low ed. (+)

Private enterprise (+)

Unionist (+)

Canvassed by uup (+)

Respect for NI assembly (+)

Westm

inster power (+)

Implem

ent GFA (+)

Canvassed by alliance (+)

Canvassed by dup (-)

Dissatisfied British Democ...

Attitudes to IntegrationHow much say the leading party at Westminster should have in running Northern Ireland, by party vote (Protestants only), 2001 Great Deal Great Deal

or Some Say

'A Little' or No Say

No Say

DUP voters 33% 66% 34% 9% UUP voters 41% 89% 11% 2%

Satisfaction with 'the way democracy works in the UK', by Party Vote (Protestants only), 2001 Very

Satisfied Very or Fairly Satisfied

Very or Fairly Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

DUP voters 7% 55% 45% 18% UUP voters 14% 77% 23% 8%

The Importance of Ideology over Class

Agree with the Statement, 'private enterprise is the best way to solve Britain's economic problems', by Party Vote (Protestants only), 2001 Agree Disagree DUP voters 43% 57% UUP voters 72% 38% Alliance 39% 61% Self-Ascribed Class Position of Protestants (excludes non-identifiers), by Party Vote, 2001 Middle

Class Working Class

DUP voters 40% 60% UUP voters 49% 51% Alliance 75% 25%

Model Summary

263.604 .200 .272Step1

-2 Loglikelihood

Cox & SnellR Square

NagelkerkeR Square

Variables in the Equation

-.565 .183 9.558 1 .002 .568

-.569 .168 11.495 1 .001 .566

.417 .168 6.192 1 .013 1.517

.337 .156 4.663 1 .031 1.401

.674 .169 15.896 1 .000 1.962

-.318 .155 4.210 1 .040 .728

-.636 .157 16.484 1 .000 .529

ANTIEST

ANTIUK

RESPYNG

INFCYN

MODREP

SOCMALC

Constant

Step1

a

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Variable(s) entered on step 1: ANTIEST, ANTIUK, RESPYNG, INFCYN, MODREP,SOCMALC.

a.

Moderate Republicans 1

Feel About Seamus Mellon 0.83 Feel Social Democratic Labour Pty(SDLP) 0.816 Respect-Dail In Dublin 0.721 Feel Alliance Party (APNI) 0.553 Feel About Charles Kennedy 0.486 Implement Belfast Agreement-Importance 0.431 Feel Sinn Fein (SF) 0.423 Respect-European Parliament 0.391 Feel About Tony Blair 0.371 Respect-Northern Ireland Assembly 0.369 Taxation-Importance 0.319 Against Peace By Reunification W/ Rest Ireland

-0.282

Belfast Agreement-Government Performance

0.277

Influence On Politics 0.246 Economic Evaluation-Country, Next Year -0.224 Marital Status 0.205 Devolution, N Ireland-Gov Performance 0.198 Euro Currency Skeptic -0.192 Loyalist-Republican Scale-Self -0.177 Democracy DisSatisfaction-United Kingdom -0.176 NHS-Government Performance 0.167 Social Class -0.163 Age Completed Education 0.119 Current Age In Years 0.108 Education-Government Performance 0.107 Respect-Parliament In Westminster 0.105 Irish Gov Abandon Goal United Ireland 0.104 Taxation-Government Performance 0.103 Economic Evaluation-Country, Past Year 0.101

Anti-UK Govt/Anti-Labour

Westminister-Say In Run N Ireland 0.798 Respect-Parliament In Westminster -0.305 Marital Status 0.289 Feel Sinn Fein (SF) 0.244 Feel About Tony Blair -0.228 Irish Gov Abandon Goal United Ireland 0.185 Interest In 2001 General Election 0.181 Current Age In Years -0.179 Devolution, Northern Ireland-Importance 0.169 Own Car 0.164 Respect-European Parliament -0.155 Attention-TV Coverage General Election 0.154 Which Religous Denomination -0.145 Crime-Importance 0.141 Belfast Agreement-Government Performance 0.141 Attitude Towards Joining Euro Currency 0.137 Economic Evaluation-Self, Next Year 0.127 Devolution, N Ireland-Gov Performance 0.122 Left-Right Scale-Self 0.113 Attention To Politics -0.113

Anti-Establishment

Private Enterprise-Solve Ec Problems 0.814 Democracy DisSatisfaction-United Kingdom 0.478 Irish Gov Abandon Goal United Ireland 0.312 Devolution, N Ireland-Gov Performance -0.272 Belfast Agreement-Government Performance -0.263 Current Age In Years -0.21 Economic Evaluation-Self, Next Year -0.15 Education-Government Performance -0.144 Feel About William Hague -0.14 Taxation-Government Performance 0.131 Own Car 0.13 Feel Alliance Party (APNI) 0.112 Feel About Seamus Mellon -0.106

Respectful Young Integrationists

Respect-Parliament In Westminster 0.627 Feel About Tony Blair 0.507 Respect-Northern Ireland Assembly 0.407 Belfast Agreement-Government Performance 0.395 Democracy DisSatisfaction-United Kingdom -0.395 Devolution, N Ireland-Gov Performance 0.353 Economic Evaluation-Self, Next Year 0.313 Economic Evaluation-Country, Next Year 0.295 Respect-Dail In Dublin 0.258 Respect-European Parliament 0.217 Feel Alliance Party (APNI) 0.216 Crime-Importance 0.204 Current Age In Years -0.182 Influence On Politics -0.177 Own Home -0.171 Westminister-Say In Run N Ireland 0.165 Implement Belfast Agreement-Importance 0.163 Economic Evaluation-Country, Past Year 0.152 Attention-TV Coverage General Election 0.151 Irish Gov Abandon Goal United Ireland 0.147 Own Car -0.127 Feel Social Democratic Labour Pty(SDLP) 0.102

Influential Male Cynics

Attention-TV Coverage General Election -0.773 Attention To Politics 0.758 Interest In 2001 General Election -0.745 Gender -0.44 Influence On Politics 0.411 Feel About Charles Kennedy 0.207 Current Age In Years 0.206 Respect-Parliament In Westminster 0.175 Respect-European Parliament -0.174 Left-Right Scale-Self 0.162 Attitude Towards Joining Euro Currency -0.15 Devolution, N Ireland-Gov Performance 0.15 Feel About William Hague 0.132 Economic Evaluation-Self, Next Year 0.128 Belong To Social Class -0.112 Crime-Importance 0.109 Own Home -0.108 Implement Belfast Agreement-Importance -0.106

Dissatisfied Social Services

Education-Importance 0.856 NHS-Importance 0.815 Crime-Importance 0.56 Gender 0.234 Devolution, N Ireland-Gov Performance -0.17 Republican-Loyalist Scale-Self 0.169 Which Religous Denomination 0.159 Own Car 0.153 Own Home 0.146 Taxation-Importance 0.129 Feel About William Hague -0.116 Irish Gov Abandon Goal United Ireland 0.105

2001 Election Study Findings (Protestants)

• Self-Identified Protestants participate at same level as Catholics

• Age by far the strongest predictor of UUP vote, esp. 18-24 vs. 55-65 cohorts

• Education level more important than income or class for a pro-UUP vote

• Anti-Establishment feeling very important for anti-UUP vote

Survey Summary

• Factors associated with a deferential, traditional political culture play a central role in UUP support

• De-traditionalisation and cohort replacement will make UUP resurgence more difficult

• Liberal ('civic unionist') support is important, but this cannot compensate for loss of traditional UUP base

Age and the Ulster Unionist Council: the Orange Order Leadership vs.

UUC Orange members

• 48% of Orange officebearers are under 40 while just a quarter of Orange UUC members are under 45

• 29% of Orange officebearers over 50, while 66% of UUC Orange members were over 55

• UUC is far more elite in terms of social status (wealth, education) than the Order or the Unionist Community

UUP share of Protestant vote at District Council level

Predictors of UUP vote (no Orange data), 1991, by Z score (N = 255)

0123456789

Church of Ireland % of Protestants, 1991 (by DC)

Orange Order Lodges & Density 1991

Orange Order Density 1991

Predictors of Orange Density (DEA level), by t statistic, 1991

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Poor and rural (+)

Migrants (-)

Protestant Unemployed% (-)

Predictors of UUP share of Protestant Vote, DC level, 1993-2001

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

R. Catholic % (+)

Region (NE vs rest) (-)

No Religion (+)

Higher Education (+)

Non-comm

unal parties' vote (-)

No car in household (+)

Orange M

embership Level 91 (+)

YEAR (-)

(Constant) (+)

Ch. Ireland Protestants (+)

Other Unionist Parties' vote (-)

Protestant Unemployed %

(-)

Retired % (-)

Z score (note +/- sign)

Determinants of UUP Constituencies, 1993-2001 (by z score)

Predictors of UUP/DUP voting ratio, 1993-2001 DC elections

0123456

The Role of Context

• Areas of High Protestant Unemployment are likely to be young and anti-Elite in attitude

• Church of Ireland and Orange counties and councils may be more deferential for historical reasons (these forces may once have shaped local political cultures) Less clear that they do so today.

Conclusion

• Importance of 'traditional' vs 'modern' divide (i.e. Older Generation, Church of Ireland, Respect for Institutions and leaders)

• 'Civic Unionist' segment exists in metropolitan Belfast but does not counterbalance de-traditionalisation in UUP/DUP voting calculus

Traditionalists (Orange & Other), Co. Tyrone

Orange Skeptics & Liberal Civics (East Belfast)

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

END

http://www.kpdata.com/epk/index.html

(Follow link 1)

Orange Traditionalists or Orange Skeptics?: the complex social base of Pro-Agreement

Unionism

Main Research Questions

• What is the social profile of the UUC and how does this differ from that of the Orange Order and the Unionist community as a whole

• Which factors best predict support for the Good Friday Agreement within the UUC?

• What are the characteristics of pro-UUP constituencies, 1993-2001[time permitting]

UUC Social Profile: 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

• Showed that roughly half the UUC were Orange members

Research Strategy

• We add contextual factors to the analysis

• 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

  % 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

The Social Profile of the UUC and Orange Order by MOSAIC Classification (99% sample)

Occupation: Orange Order versus Orange UUC Delegates

White Collar* Farmer Manual Retired N

Orange male

Membership

22% 20% 40% 5-10%** 41% of

members***

Orange UUC

male delegates

44% 14% 6.3% 25.8% 128

Age: Orange Order Leadership vs. the Orange UUC

• 48% of Orange officebearers are under 40 while just a quarter of Orange UUC members are under 45

• 29% of Orange officebearers over 50, while 66% of UUC Orange members were over 55

Findings: Social Profile

• 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

GFA Voting Dynamics: Previous Survey Research

• Orange Order membership and age were clearly important (p < .001)

• Much unexplained: R2 = .1 predicting 1998 vote and .03 in predicting 'Vote Today'

• Concluded that division lay between 'Orange skeptics' and 'rational civics'

Support for the Agreement by UUP Constituency Association, c. 2002

UUC Constituency Profile: Rural

UUC Constituency Profile: Status

Orange/Non-Orange Differential in Support for the Agreement

Model Summary

.531a .282 .264 1.1741Model1

R R SquareAdjustedR Square

Std. Error ofthe Estimate

Predictors: (Constant), NOTSTPC, YEAR, ProtUI*UImeasure, COIPRT, ORNGD91, RCPCT

a.

Coefficientsa

196.205 45.069 4.353 .000

1.062 .426 .168 2.493 .013

-5.473 1.618 -.202 -3.383 .001

3.979 1.656 .155 2.403 .017

-9.85E-02 .023 -.237 -4.364 .000

4.020 .726 .351 5.540 .000

15.764 5.354 .198 2.945 .004

(Constant)

RCPCT

ProtUI*UI measure

ORNGD91

YEAR

COIPRT

NOTSTPC

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: UUPEDGEa.

Table 1. Orange UUC Delegates and Orange Members: A Social Comparison

White Collar* Farmer Manual Retired N

Orange male

Membership

22% 20% 40% 5-10%** 41% of

members***

Orange UUC

male delegates

44% 14% 6.3% 25.8% 128

*Mostly professional, civil service and management. Includes the 6 percent of Orange survey

respondents who ticked the ‘admin’ box and the 3 percent of Tonge & Evans’ UUC sample

who stated ‘clerical’ as their occupation.

**15% of respondents marked ‘other’, and the report claims that a ‘sizeable’ number of these

were retired. (LOI Commission 1997)

Table 4. Orange and UUC Residence, by 1971 County/County Borough (100% sample)†

UUC Sample* Orange UUC

bloc delegates*

Orange mass

membership**

N.I. Protestant

Population

(1971)***

Antrim 26.9% 22.0% 22.5% 26.0%

Armagh 11.5% 11.9% 13.7% 7.0%

Belfast 13.3% 10.2% 9.4% 13-15% (2001)

Derry City 1.6% 0.0% 2.2% 1.2%

Down 23.3% 19.5% 19.5% 23.4%

Fermanagh 5.1% 6.8% 6.6% 2.3% (2001)

Londonderry

County 8.5% 8.5% 10.8%

7.2% (10% in

2001 including

Derry City)

Tyrone 9.8% 11.0% 15.3% 6% (2001)

† Counties are exclusive of county boroughs.

* 100% sample. UUC N = 888. Orange UUC bloc N = 118 (includes Orange women).

** From GOLI returns 2001. Thousands of members - owing to our privacy agreement with

GOLI, we cannot state the actual figure.

***Irish Historical Census 1971. We use the 1971 figures since they are the most recent

available using the old eight-county census boundaries. 2001 figures are based on

approximations from adding together relevant local government districts (only possible where

borders are reasonably close).

Table 5. Stance Toward Good Friday Agreement, by Party Section, 2002

UUC Party Section Pro-Agreement N Sample

MLAs* 93.3% 15 100%

Councillors* 90.0% 10 100%

Newry & Armagh 87.5% 40 100%

Strangford 84.8% 46 98%

N. Belfast 80.0% 35 95%

UUC Average 57.9% 856 96%

East Londonderry 50.0% 42 98%

S. Belfast 48.6% 35 100%

Young Unionist 38.1% 21 68%

Lagan Valley 35.8% 53 100%

Orange Order 25.9% 112 95%

*These delegates comprise only a fraction of the total number of UUC delegates who are

MLAs and District Councillors.

Table 7. Orange Delegates' Stance Toward the GFA: the Role of Party Section and Orange

Activism

Ungrouped Logit Model Conditional Logit (Section)

B S.E. B S.E.

Orange membership -.2756488*** (.0689242) -.6494674 (.6829727)

Elected 1.7179* (.3753633) .2388782 (.2447076)

(MOSAIC) status score 1.005093 (.0057066) .0028359 (.0061245)

(MOSAIC) rural .9825566 (.2034435) .1208905 (.2423211)

Gender 1.37029 (.2513376) .2698756 (.1980430)

Orange active -.7729502 (.2815944) -1.15594* (.5012214)

Pseudo R2= .0606 for ungrouped model and .0129 for grouped model.

* p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 8. Multi-Level Binomial Logistic Regression of Good Friday Agreement Delegate Stance† B S.E. Wald Statistic

(Multi-Level) Wald Statistic (Fixed Effects) ††††

Orange Officebearer -2.409 .590 16.642*** 12.515*** Orange member from Methodist High-Protestant Constituency (interaction)

-1.043 .280 13.870*** 9.953**

Respectable Working Class Constituency

.868 .314 7.604** 6.559*

Member of Northern Ireland Assembly (MLA)

2.437 1.034 5.554* 5.092*

Orange member from strongly Orange Constituency (interaction)

4.687 2.063 5.161* ----

County of Residence†† .401 .400 1.006 15.544* Party Section 91.598*** 94.763*** Orange Bloc -2.303 .622 13.714*** ---- North Antrim 3.098 .928 11.110*** ---- Newry & Armagh 1.766 .621 8.083** ---- Lagan Valley -1.559 .563 7.651** ---- East Belfast 1.338 .569 5.531* ---- South Belfast 1.798 .937 3.673 ---- Young Unionists -.967 .631 2.351 ---- Foyle 1.004 .682 2.166 ---- South Antrim -.867 .617 1.974 ---- North Belfast .679 .498 1.860 ---- Upper Bann .552 .512 1.161 ---- Party Officers .950 1.176 .652 ---- Women Unionists .591 .839 .495 ---- East Londonderry -.347 .502 .478 ---- Fermanagh & S. Tyrone .300 .525 .327 ---- Strangford .381 .677 .316 ---- East Antrim .244 .613 .158 ---- North Down .154 .677 .052 ---- Mid-Ulster -.070 .534 .017 ---- South Down .057 .635 .008 ---- Level 1 Constant: ---- ---- ---- .539 - 2 log likelihood 872.464 920.469 Pseudo R2 (Nagelkerke) ††† ---- .295 * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001. † N = 887. Pro-Agreement stance is coded 1, Anti-Agreement as 0. Party section has 21 degrees of freedom, West Tyrone is the reference category, and did not turn up significant in regressions using other reference categories. †† Pre-1973 counties/county boroughs. Belfast is the reference category for the fixed-effects model. For the multilevel model, this describes variation of a level 2 constant which was found to be zero, hence county of residence has no significant effect in the multilevel model. ††† No pseudo R2 is provided by MLwiN. †††† Coefficients for individual party sections in the fixed effects model are not provided as they bear no logical relationship to the data due to multicollinearity. (See discussion below)

Table 9. Logistic Regression of Good Friday Agreement Stance among Orange Order-

member Delegates

B S.E.

Proportion Respectable Working-Class in Constituency (factor) 1.729* .741

Proportion of Protestant population that is Methodist in

Constituency

-26.955* 12.836

Proportion Catholic in Constituency 4.684* 1.915

Orange Officebearer -1.093* .495

Orange Membership per Protestant population in Constituency 8.730* 4.028

Constant -3.370*** .962

N = 133. Nagelkerke R2 = .375

*p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 11. Logistic Regression of Good Friday Agreement Stance among Elected Delegates

B S.E.

Proportion Respectable Working-Class in Constituency (factor) .580* .233

Section Vote 2.717* 1.194

MLA 1.845† 1.073

Constant -1.032 .801

N = 137. Nagelkerke R2 = .229; Cox & Snell R2 = .156.

*p < .05; †p < .1

Appendix 1: Derivation of 'Methodist High-Protestant' Factor

Rotated Component Matrix

Component

'Established Church' 'Methodist High-Protestant'

CATHOLIC .375 -.849

PRESBYTERIAN -.945 -3.831E-02

METHODIST .529 .708

CHURCH OF IRELAND .908 -.156

OTHER PROTESTANT -2.237E-03 .576

% of Variance Explained 42.85% 31.5%

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser

Normalization.

Appendix 2: Derivation of 'Respectable Working Class' Factor

Rotated Component Matrix

Component

'High Status' 'Respectable

Working

Class'

AB. Higher and intermediate managerial / administrative /

professional

.974 6.004E-02

C1. Supervisory, clerical, junior managerial / administrative /

professional

.853 .380

C2. Skilled manual workers -.722 .374

D. Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers -.777 -.465

E. On state benefit, unemployed, lowest grade workers -.472 -.790

EDUCATION LEVEL 0: No qualifications -.871 -.459

EDUCATION LEVEL_1: Primary School -.321 .736

EDUCATION LEVEL_2: High School GCSE 5.558E-02 .946

EDUCATION LEVEL_3: High School A-level .878 -.173

EDUCATION LEVEL_4: First university degree .976 .125

EDUCATION LEVEL_5: Higher university degree .972 -.184

% of Variance Explained 61.3% 25.4%

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser

Normalization.