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.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.