911 Ten Years On

YouGov also have some polling out for the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre. In a same way that older generations say they remember where when Kennedy was assassinated, 91% of British adults say they can remember what they were doing when news of the 9/11 attacks broke. 53% of people say that the 9/11 attacks changed the world completely, 38% think it changed the world a little. Only 7% of people think the attacks did not change much or anything.

In comparison 84% of people remember where they were when Princess Diana died, 68% when the 7/7 attacks on the London Underground took place, 25% when Margaret Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister, 22% when Nelson Mandela was released from prison and 29% when the Berlin Wall fell, the oldest event asked about (on the older ones I suspect some people have false memories – under 25s were around 3 years old at most when the Berlin Wall fell, so I do rather doubt 7% actally remember were they were. Perhaps it’s people who’ve been told by their parents where they were on the day!)

YouGov also repeated some questions that were first asked for the fifth anniversary of 9/11, five years ago. Back then YouGov asked if people thought there was a “War on Terror” and if Britain and the US were winning. While the phrase “war on terror” has fallen out of use – a relic of the George W Bush years – compared to five years ago, people are more likely to think there is a war (69% think there is, compared to 63% five years ago) and slightly more optimistic about whether the West is prevailing – perhaps because of the death of Osama bin Laden, or the absence of recent major Islamic terrorist attacks on targets in the West.

In 2006 only 7% thought Britain and the USA were winning the “War on Terror”, 22% thought they were losing and 50% thought they were neither winning nor losing. Now 13% think Britain and the USA are winning (up 6), 11% losing (down 11).

There is not, however, much difference in how worried people are about the chances of terrorism affecting them as they were five years ago. 7% of people think there is a very or fairly high chance of them, a friend or relative being caught in a terrorist attack (compared to 8% in 2006), 60% think there is a low chance (compared to 59% in 2006), 25% think the chance of being the victim of a terrorist attack (unchanged).

Neither have attitudes towards British Muslims and Islam itself softened much over the last five years. While respondents overwhelmingly think that the great majority (63%) or practically all (17%) British Muslims are peaceful and law-abiding, a significant minority of respondents (15%) said they though a large proportion of British Muslims would be prepared to condone acts of terrorism, down from 18% five years ago. The religion of Islam itself is still seen as a threat to western Liberal democracy by 51% of people, barely down from 53% in 2006. 37% think Islam poses little or no threat to the West.


288 Responses to “911 Ten Years On”

1 4 5 6
  1. Conservatives to go will reportedly insist on lucrative quango posts, or prestigious ambassadorial appointments, otherwise they are in the same position as anyone else facing redundancy, with no incentive to actually vote for it.

    In other news, the seemingly incredible statistic that one in seven in the US rely on food stamps.

    In the UK, charities in places like Cambridge and Salisbury are reporting that the number of people presenting with vouchers for food parcels is currently doubling every two weeks.

  2. Billy bob

    The food stamps thing is astounding, I have often thought about posting about it but I was worried that no one would believe me

  3. (reposted because the above was, er, wrong)

    @Statgeek

    You said “…’Rumours have been swirling in Westminster today about whether Twickenham MP Dr Cable and Richmond Park MP Zac Goldsmith’s parliamentary constituencies could merge.’…Given that Goldsmith’s seat electorate is 77,000 and Cable’s is 78,000, I can’t really see it. What’s the story on that one then?…”

    If Guido’s reports are correct, then yes, they are merging as follows:

    Twickenham (Cable) currently has 11 wards.
    * Fulwell and Hampton Hill; – going to “Teddington and Hanworth”
    * Hampton; – going to “Teddington and Hanworth”
    * Hampton North; – going to “Teddington and Hanworth”
    * Hampton Wick; – going to “Teddington and Hanworth”
    * Heathfield; – going to “Teddington and Hanworth”
    * St Margarets and North Twickenham; – going to “Richmond and Twickenham”
    * South Twickenham; – going to “Richmond and Twickenham”
    * Teddington; – going to “Teddington and Hanworth”
    * Twickenham Riverside; – going to “Richmond and Twickenham”
    * West Twickenham; – going to “Richmond and Twickenham”
    * Whitton; – going to “Teddington and Hanworth”

    Richmond Park (Goldsmith) currently has 12 wards.
    * Canbury; – going to “Kingston and Surbiton”
    * Coombe Hill; – going to “Wimbledon and New Malden”
    * Coombe Vale; – going to “Wimbledon and New Malden”
    * Tudor; – going to “Kingston and Surbiton”
    * Barnes; – going to “Richmond and Twickenham”
    * East Sheen; – going to “Richmond and Twickenham”
    * Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside; – going to “Richmond and Twickenham”
    * Kew; – going to “Richmond and Twickenham”
    * Mortlake and Barnes Common; – going to “Richmond and Twickenham”
    * North Richmond; – going to “Richmond and Twickenham”
    * South Richmond; – going to “Richmond and Twickenham”

    So the new constituency of “Richmond and Twickenham” will have 7/11ths Goldsmith, 4/11ths Cable. This would be the world’s weirdest game of “Snog, Marry, Avoid”.

    As ever, this is caveat’d like crazy: do not quote me…

    Regards, Martyn

    * h ttp://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/2011_08_23_london_online.pdf
    * h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Park_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
    * h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twickenham_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

  4. Oh joy! Clegg’s seat to become a LD-Lab marginal!

    4 out of the 5 wards in Sheffield Hallam go into the new Sheffield West and Penistone, but the safest LD seat of the lot (Dore) does not. The other two seats to come in are Stannington (Lab gain in 2011) and Penistone West from Barnsley (Con seat with Lab second, LDs 0% of the vote in 2011).

    So based on the 2011 election results, of the 6 wards in Clegg’s successor seat, 3 are LD held, 2 Lab held and 1 Con. But of those 3 LD seats, one would have gone Lab with a swing of just 3 votes.

  5. @Phil

    Yup

    based on the 2011 local election results, Clegg has an awkward choice.

    Sheffield SW
    Labour: 15259
    LD: 12951
    Conservatives: 5050
    Greens: 3928
    Right-leaning minor parties and indies: 973
    TUSC: 333

    Sheffield W and Penistone
    LD: 13212
    Labour: 13110
    Conservatives: 7667
    Greens: 4436
    Right-leaning minor parties and indies: 1705

  6. Phil

    Gloating is unattractive, but carry on regardless, for me the prospect of Goldman versus cable is thrilling

  7. @Martyn,

    So, based on that info, the new Richmond and Twickenham seat will notionally be a Lib Dem seat based on the 2010 GE vote, but definitely a Tory one based on current polling. Interesting.

  8. @AmbivalentSupporter

    Yup.

    Regards, Martyn

  9. We are so going to get wiped. Libdem mps rely more than most on local support base and name recognition. Forget about taxi, more like motorbike

  10. “…seat will notionally be a Lib Dem seat based on the 2010 GE vote, but definitely a Tory one based on current polling. Interesting.”

    A scenario writ large across the country by the look of it.

    ***
    All the media/ web coverage thus far seems to be suggesting that it is the LibDems who have got a severe wrong-end-of-the-stick.

    AW- your blog site needs you !!

  11. Questions you will never hear during the 2015 Richmond and Twickenham election debate:

    * “Did you see TOWIE last night?”
    * “Who’s going to win X Factor”
    * “Who’s better: Cheryl or Talisa?”

    Lord above… :-)

    Regards, Martyn

  12. @ROGER & MARTYN

    Thanks. Very interesting indeed! No wonder these things take years to plan/decide.

  13. @RiN
    Forgive me and feel welcome to gloat if your lot hang on to it by a whisker in due course.

    Given that Farron’s seat is also split. I’m wondering what this’ll do to the “Next Lib Dem” leader market if there’s no contest until after the GE?

  14. @Rob Sheffield,

    “All the media/ web coverage thus far seems to be suggesting that it is the LibDems who have got a severe wrong-end-of-the-stick.”

    Yes, it certainly seems that way.

  15. I did some back of envelope calculations to get a very rough idea of the notional position the North and West Yorkshire seat block. For the most part, it can be easily guessed which way seats would go on a 0% swing.

    Overall, there is a reduction of two seats. By my reckoning, there will be two fewer Lib Dem MPs in that area. Lab and Con unchanged overall (with some Lab gains from Con and vice versa – but Halifax would be a hyper marginal gain for Con).

    This is a very rough guess of course.

  16. Phil

    You only need a leader if you have a party. It’s starting to look like we need 20% of the votes to win any seats

  17. Roger M

    “Of course this could be the BCE pointing out to the government what the inevitable answer to a stupid question is.” / “Mersey Banks looks horrendous…..and if we’re really lucky Half-Man Half-Biscuit will write a song about it.”

    Two classic quotes :D

  18. Billy Bob & RiN

    Thanks for the info re US food stamps. I did a bit of looking, and found this Reuters article helpful with the detail

    http://news.yahoo.com/usa-becomes-food-stamp-nation-sustainable-160645036.html

  19. @Statgeek

    You’re welcome.

    Regards, Martyn

  20. Has anyone worked out yet how the last election would’ve played out assuming these changes were in place and votes were otherwise unchanged?

  21. “Has anyone worked out yet how the last election would’ve played out assuming these changes were in place and votes were otherwise unchanged?”
    Just the question I was about to ask – surely the previous election under new boundaries would have to be the base for swing calculators – so someone must be working away at the figures.

  22. @Berious,

    We won’t be able to do that until the new Scottish and Welsh boundaries are announced next month. The English boundary changes should, in theory, affect the Conservatives worse because they have more seats to lose. Similarly, the Scottish and Welsh changes should affect Labour worse because Labour does well in these areas. So until we get the overall picture across the UK, the UK-wide picture will still remain unclear.

    However, tonight’s calculations should be able to confirm if Lewis’s model is accurate, and if the Tories are likely to do better from the changes than he envisaged.

  23. @ Rob Sheffield

    All the media/ web coverage thus far seems to be suggesting that it is the LibDems who have got a severe wrong-end-of-the-stick.
    ————————————–
    I’m desperate for Anthony’s view on this because – & maybe some readers will remember – that’s exactly what I forecast ages ago. Little islands of yellow floating in red & blue seas which would likely not survive the change that was coming.

    Of course Labour will take a kicking too, which was the original plan of course, but it’ll be some consolation if the pain is shared around rather more than the Coalition were expecting.
    8-)

  24. Tingedfringe

    Why do you think Anthony’s so quiet? Especially as the BCE have made his job a lot easier by not splitting wards.

    Statgeek, Rob S

    We aim to please :D

  25. Anthony’s quiet because he working away trying to produce a new constituency guide and a new seats calculater

  26. I think one thing is clear – whatever the outcome of the boundary changes, Labour will still need a lower vote percentage than the Tories to win a majority. No matter how much the Tories try to change this, Labour will still hold the advantage.8-)

  27. @AMBIVALENT

    The changing shap of political voting in the North might just reduce Labour’s advantage at Westminster though. There’s nothing concrete as yet (Angus Reid polls are massively different from YG), so we’ll maybe need to wait for the Local Elections in 2012 to get a slightly better idea (or worse, if you believe local elections are in no way representative).

  28. Anthony’s quiet because he working away trying to produce a new constituency guide and a new seats calculator
    ——————————————-
    No, he’s sitting with his head in his hands, still stunned by that ‘horrendous’ Mersey Banks seat. ;-)

  29. It’s exciting ain’t it?

    I have a feeling in England it’s going to look bad for both coalition parties. And the loss of seats in Scotland might end up by losing SNP seats!

  30. Nick Poole

    ” And the loss of seats in Scotland might end up by losing SNP seats!”

    Entirely possible, if “losing seats” means replicating the 2010 vote on the new boundaries.

  31. @ Nick P

    I have a feeling in England it’s going to look bad for both coalition parties. And the loss of seats in Scotland might end up by losing SNP seats!
    —————————————-
    The SNP only have 1 Westminster seat at the moment. Labour will definitely lose a few seats in Scotland but it could be quite bad for the Dems up here too.
    8-)

  32. Amber

    You did and it looks like you were right, but we will see when Anthony sorts out his seat calculator but it won’t be able to allow for personal vote and the voters moving out of a libdem seat are more likely to swing if they haven’t got a name they know to vote for, equally those moving into a libdem seat will not know their mp and the incumbent factor which I think is important for libdem mps will be missing, can you understand this garbled nonsense.

  33. they are Labour seats at the moment. But if the SNP make gains next time then labour would have lost quite a few anyway. And if they don’t loseteh support in the Westminster election, Labour will be set fair anyway!

  34. The SNP probably won’t lose any seats (notionally) if we’re going by the 2010 results unless a narrowly notionally tory Angus North and Mearns seat is created in which case they drop one.
    Realistically most people expect them to at least double their seats due to the LD collapse.

    The LDs will be the main losers in Scotland with the changes.

  35. I wonder if this will make libdem mps more receptive to any possible revolt at conference, it might make the blue backbenchers more eager for a fight if there is a chance that it would lead to a new election on the old boundaries

  36. Amber

    “The SNP only have 1 Westminster seat at the moment.”

    Did you nick the others when I wasn’t looking! :-)

  37. @StatGeek,

    True, but I think we always knew that the gap would be closed and that Labour will now need more to get a majority and the Tories less. But it will also become clear that the changes are not as radical as some Tories would undoubtedly like. Simply put, they may have closed the advantage with Labour, but one still will still exist! 8-)

  38. Crunching some numbers (based on electorate of 2010 election).

    Of 59 seats up this way, 13 are with the 72810 – 80473 parameters. 2 are over, and the rest (44) are under the minimum required.

    The more interesting scenarios:

    Aberdeen North (64808) and South (64031), which are both Labour can only get more additions from Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine (66110) or Gordon (73420), which are both Lib Dem. Equally, Banff and Buchan (64300) is North of Gordon and is SNP.

    I can see masses of long faces in that one. :)

    Another:

    Fife North East (62771 / Menzies Campbell / St Andrews / Lib Dem) can only get more from Glenrothes (67765 / Labour) or Ochil & South Perthshire (75115 / Labour).

    Glenrothes is heavy-duty Labour and if North East Fife take 12,000 or so seats from there, 60% of them will be Labour voters.

    Fife NE 2010 results:

    Lib 17,763
    Con 8,715
    Lab 6,869
    SNP 5,685
    UKIP 1,032

    Adding in the Glenrothes effect, a result might be:

    Lib 18,687
    Lab 14,345
    Con 9,579
    SNP 8,289
    UKIP 1,152

    If we factor in the Lib Dem polling and the SNP polling (SNP took Glenrothes on the MSP level) …we could be talking all sorts of wonderful things 2-way, 3-way or even 4-way marginal. :)

1 4 5 6