9/11 ten years on: what the public think now

45 per cent believe that a terrorist attack is either likely or very likely in the UK in the next ye

Tomorrow's New Statesman is a special issue marking the 10th anniversary of the 11 September, 2001 attacks. In conjunction with the issue, we commissioned a special poll from ICD Research on the subject, the results of which appear below.


Asked if they feel safer now than on 10 September 2001, just 21 per cent said they felt less safe (14 per cent) or much less safe (7 per cent). 13 per cent said they felt slightly more safe (8 per cent) or much more safe (5 per cent). The majority (66 per cent) said they felt no different.


Ten years on from 9/11 and six years on from 7/7, a large number of people believe that a terrorist attack is likely in the UK in the next year. 45 per cent said that an attack was either likely (37 per cent) or very likely (8 per cent), compared to 16 per cent who said that an attack was unlikely (13 per cent) or most unlikely (3 per cent). 39 per cent said that an attack was neither likely or unlikely.


Asked if they were more fearful of home grown or foreign terrorists, 49 per cent said the former and 21 per cent said the latter. Those aged 55 and over are most fearful of home grown terrorists (61.8 per cent) and those aged 25-34 are least fearful (32 per cent).


Finally, asked if they considered 9/11 to be the biggest news event of their lives, 45.5 per cent said yes and 54.5 per cent said no. Those aged 55 and over were least likely to say that the attacks were the biggest news event of their lives (63.6 per cent). Conversely, those aged 25-34 were most likely to say that 9/11 was the biggest news event of their lives (53.1 per cent), followed by those aged 18-24 (52.4 per cent).

This exclusive poll for the New Statesman was carried out by ICD Research, powered by ID Factor, from 27-28 August 2011 and is based on a sample of 1,000 responses

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.