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 multilevel and fixed-effects logistic regressions
The Social Profile of the UUC and Orange Order by MOSAIC Classification (99% sample)
% Top 12 Freemason officebearers Orange bloc UUC delegates UUC delegates total Grand Orange Lodge officebearers Northern Ireland population average 67.8% 45.7% 44.3% 34.7% Rural 8 15.5% 36.2% 35.9% 44.4% Bottom 7 8.0% 12.4% 8.4% 9.7% Nonrural Top 12 80.2% 71.6% 69.0% 62.5% Nonrural Bottom 7 9.4% 19.4% 13.1% 17.5% N
766 105 879 144
32.5%
18.1%
22.9%
39.6%
27.9%
1.6 m 1429
Orange Order (lodge) officebearers
32.4%
43.9%
12.4%
57.7%
22.1%
Occupation: Orange Order versus Orange UUC Delegates
White Collar* Orange male Membership Orange UUC male delegates 44% 14% 6.3% 25.8% 22% Farmer 20% Manual 40% Retired 5-10%** N 41% of members*** 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
Differences in Stance within the Orange UUC
Characteristic Non-Orange Delegates Orange officebearers outside Orange bloc Non-officebearers in Orange bloc Orange officebearers in Orange bloc Orange/Non-Orange Voting Differential (Tonge & Evans) Orange/Non-Orange Voting Differential (Kaufmann & Patterson) ProN Sample Agreement 66.30% 704 91% 52.60% 22 86% 32.90% 73 94% 12.80% 40 98%
20.00% 130 40.00% 106
33% 99%
Findings: Individual
• Orange and MLA status are the most important individual characteristics • Rural, Gender, Title, Education and Status unimportant • Age may be important
Findings: Contextual
• Contextual factors explain most of the variance (party section, geography of residence) • Sectional splits and Geographic splits within the Orange Order are critical • Big difference between UUC delegates who happen to be Orange and those who represent the Orange
Conclusion
• Implications of breaking UUC-Orange link • 'Orange skeptics' vs. 'rational civics' idea needs to be contextualised to official Orangeism - esp. in Belfast & Antrim • Importance of 'traditional' vs 'modern' divide (i.e. West Bann Orangemen, respectable working-class constituencies)
UUP share of Protestant vote at District Council level
Church of Ireland % of Protestants, 1991 (by DC)
Orange Order Lodges & Density (southern counties) 1991
Predictors of UUP share of Protestant Vote, DC level, 1993-2001
(-) % ) ed (oy % (-) pl d te m i re vo ne et U s' R nt t ie ta ar ) es tP (+ ot is s Pr nt on ni ta U es er ot th Pr O nd la Ire ) h. ) (+ C (+ t) 1 an l9 st ve on Le (C p hi (-) rs AR be ) (+ YE em d M (-) ol e e eh ot ng 'v ra us O es ho rti n ri pa ca al o un N ) m (+ om n -c tio on ca N du rE ) he ig (+ -) H n )( io st ig re el R vs o E N (N ) n io (+ eg % R .C R l ic ho at
Z score (note +/- sign) 3 2 1 0
6
5
4
Determinants of UUP Constituencies, 1993-2001 (by z score)
Predictors of UUP/DUP voting ratio, 1993-2001 DC elections 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
O C I( +)
a Ye r( -)
o Pr t. e Un an t( +)
n io ig el R
C R
O
on C st
ra ng e en D
) (+
t No .. St .
o. pl m ..
ty si .. .
Non-Orange Skeptics: Protestant Working-Class Area, Co. Armagh
Orange Skeptics & Liberal Civics (East Belfast)
Traditionalists (Orange & Other), Co. Tyrone
END
http://www.kpdata.com/epk/index.html (Follow link 1)
Model Summary Adjusted R Square .264 Std. Error of the Estimate 1.1741
Model 1
R R Square a .531 .282
a. Predictors: (Constant), NOTSTPC, YEAR, ProtUI*UI measure, COIPRT, ORNGD91, RCPCT
Coefficientsa Standardi zed Coefficien ts Beta .168 -.202 .155 -.237 .351 .198
Model 1
(Constant) RCPCT ProtUI*UI measure ORNGD91 YEAR COIPRT NOTSTPC
Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 196.205 45.069 1.062 .426 -5.473 1.618 3.979 1.656 -9.85E-02 .023 4.020 .726 15.764 5.354
t 4.353 2.493 -3.383 2.403 -4.364 5.540 2.945
Sig. .000 .013 .001 .017 .000 .000 .004
a. Dependent Variable: UUPEDGE
Table 1. Orange UUC Delegates and Orange Members: A Social Comparison White Collar* Orange male Membership Orange UUC male delegates *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) 44% 14% 6.3% 25.8% 22% Farmer 20% Manual 40% Retired 5-10%** N 41% of members*** 128
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 Armagh Belfast Derry City Down Fermanagh 26.9% 11.5% 13.3% 1.6% 23.3% 5.1% 22.0% 11.9% 10.2% 0.0% 19.5% 6.8% 22.5% 13.7% 9.4% 2.2% 19.5% 6.6% 26.0% 7.0% 13-15% (2001) 1.2% 23.4% 2.3% (2001) 7.2% (10% in Londonderry County Tyrone 8.5% 9.8% 8.5% 11.0% 10.8% 15.3% 2001 including Derry City) 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
Table 5. Stance Toward Good Friday Agreement, by Party Section, 2002 UUC Party Section MLAs* Councillors* Newry & Armagh Strangford N. Belfast UUC Average East Londonderry S. Belfast Young Unionist Lagan Valley Orange Order Pro-Agreement 93.3% 90.0% 87.5% 84.8% 80.0% 57.9% 50.0% 48.6% 38.1% 35.8% 25.9% N 15 10 40 46 35 856 42 35 21 53 112 Sample 100% 100% 100% 98% 95% 96% 98% 100% 68% 100% 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 B Orange membership Elected (MOSAIC) status score (MOSAIC) rural Gender Orange active -.2756488*** 1.7179* 1.005093 .9825566 1.37029 -.7729502 S.E. (.0689242) (.3753633) (.0057066) (.2034435) (.2513376) (.2815944) Conditional Logit (Section) B -.6494674 .2388782 .0028359 .1208905 .2698756 -1.15594* S.E. (.6829727) (.2447076) (.0061245) (.2423211) (.1980430) (.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) †††† 16.642*** 12.515*** 13.870*** 9.953**
Orange Officebearer Orange member from Methodist High-Protestant Constituency (interaction) Respectable Working Class Constituency Member of Northern Ireland Assembly (MLA) Orange member from strongly Orange Constituency (interaction) County of Residence†† Party Section Orange Bloc North Antrim Newry & Armagh Lagan Valley East Belfast South Belfast Young Unionists Foyle South Antrim North Belfast Upper Bann Party Officers Women Unionists East Londonderry Fermanagh & S. Tyrone Strangford East Antrim North Down Mid-Ulster South Down Level 1 Constant: - 2 log likelihood Pseudo R2 (Nagelkerke) †††
-2.409 -1.043
.590 .280
.868 2.437 4.687
.314 1.034 2.063
7.604** 5.554* 5.161*
6.559* 5.092* ----
.401 -2.303 3.098 1.766 -1.559 1.338 1.798 -.967 1.004 -.867 .679 .552 .950 .591 -.347 .300 .381 .244 .154 -.070 .057 ----
.400 .622 .928 .621 .563 .569 .937 .631 .682 .617 .498 .512 1.176 .839 .502 .525 .677 .613 .677 .534 .635 ----
1.006 91.598*** 13.714*** 11.110*** 8.083** 7.651** 5.531* 3.673 2.351 2.166 1.974 1.860 1.161 .652 .495 .478 .327 .316 .158 .052 .017 .008 ---872.464 ----
15.544* 94.763*** ------------------------------------------------------------.539 920.469 .295
Table 9. Logistic Regression of Good Friday Agreement Stance among Orange Ordermember Delegates B Proportion Respectable Working-Class in Constituency (factor) Proportion of Protestant population that is Methodist in Constituency Proportion Catholic in Constituency Orange Officebearer Orange Membership per Protestant population in Constituency Constant N = 133. Nagelkerke R2 = .375 *p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001. 4.684* -1.093* 8.730* -3.370*** 1.915 .495 4.028 .962 1.729* -26.955* S.E. .741 12.836
Table 11. Logistic Regression of Good Friday Agreement Stance among Elected Delegates B Proportion Respectable Working-Class in Constituency (factor) Section Vote MLA Constant N = 137. Nagelkerke R2 = .229; Cox & Snell R2 = .156. *p < .05; †p < .1 .580* 2.717* 1.845† -1.032 S.E. .233 1.194 1.073 .801
Appendix 1: Derivation of 'Methodist High-Protestant' Factor
Rotated Component Matrix Component 'Established Church' CATHOLIC PRESBYTERIAN METHODIST CHURCH OF IRELAND OTHER PROTESTANT % of Variance Explained .375 -.945 .529 .908 -2.237E-03 42.85% 'Methodist High-Protestant' -.849 -3.831E-02 .708 -.156 .576 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 C1. Supervisory, clerical, junior managerial / administrative / professional C2. Skilled manual workers D. Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers E. On state benefit, unemployed, lowest grade workers EDUCATION LEVEL 0: No qualifications EDUCATION LEVEL_1: Primary School EDUCATION LEVEL_2: High School GCSE EDUCATION LEVEL_3: High School A-level EDUCATION LEVEL_4: First university degree EDUCATION LEVEL_5: Higher university degree % of Variance Explained -.722 -.777 -.472 -.871 -.321 5.558E-02 .878 .976 .972 61.3% .374 -.465 -.790 -.459 .736 .946 -.173 .125 -.184 25.4% .853 .380 .974 6.004E-02