Lib Dems hate Jon Pertwee, and UKIP wants a straight Doctor most

Data on Doctor Who.

New Statesman contributor Jonn Elledge points out that YouGov has surveyed people's thoughts on Doctor Who. Which wouldn't be particularly notable, except for the fact that YouGov always breaks down surveys by demographics, including political affiliation.

So we find out that:

  • Only 31 per cent of people describe themselves as "interested in Doctor Who"; but that ranges from 26 per cent of UKIP voters to 41 per cent of Liberal Democrats. Interest also varies by age, with people aged between 40 and 59 most likely to be interested, and people aged over 60 least likely. (People under 18 were not interviewed)
  • When people were asked to pick their favourite Doctor, the top three were David Tennant, Tom Baker and Matt Smith. While the age breakdown was relatively unsurprising for some – with 18-24 year olds liking Matt Smith more than any other age group, and 40-59 year olds liking Tom Baker more than any other age group – David Tennant was the runaway favourite amongst every single demographic breakdown.
  • Jon Pertwee is the most right-wing Doctor, beloved by 11 per cent of Tories and 13 per cent of UKIP voters, and 0 per cent of Lib Dems.
  • Ladies love cool Dave. Tennant is the favourite of 55 per cent of women.
  • When asked what about the next Doctor, a little over half thought it was important that they were British. Whether or not they should be male had a strong party breakdown: 60 per cent of Tories and UKIP voters think it's important, and just 40 per cent of Labourites and Lib Dems.
  • UKIP wants a gay Doctor least: 36 per cent of them think it's important the Doctor be heterosexual, compared to just 9 per cent of Labourites.
  • But by far the biggest gap comes when respondents are asked whether or not it is important that actor who plays the Doctor, a thousand-year-old time-travelling alien from the planet Gallifrey, be white. Just 5 per cent of Lib Dems thought it was; 50 per cent of members of the libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the EU do.

The whole survey must be taken with a grain of salt, though. After all, YouGov refer to the character as "Doctor Who", and we all know that's a sure sign of someone who can't be trusted.

Peter Davison, the fifth Doctor, beloved by 6 per cent of 20-39 year-olds. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

The deafening killer - why noise will be the next great pollution scandal

A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. 

Our cities are being poisoned by a toxin that surrounds us day and night. It eats away at our brains, hurts our hearts, clutches at our sleep, and gnaws at the quality of our daily lives.

Hardly a silent killer, it gets short shrift compared to the well-publicised terrors of air pollution and sugars food. It is the dull, thumping, stultifying drum-beat of perpetual noise.

The score that accompanies city life is brutal and constant. It disrupts the everyday: The coffee break ruined by the screech of a line of double decker buses braking at the lights. The lawyer’s conference call broken by drilling as she makes her way to the office. The writer’s struggle to find a quiet corner to pen his latest article.

For city-dwellers, it’s all-consuming and impossible to avoid. Construction, traffic, the whirring of machinery, the neighbour’s stereo. Even at home, the beeps and buzzes made by washing machines, fridges, and phones all serve to distract and unsettle.

But the never-ending noisiness of city life is far more than a problem of aesthetics. A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. Recent studies have linked noise pollution to hearing loss, sleep deprivation, hypertension, heart disease, brain development, and even increased risk of dementia.

One research team compared families living on different stories of the same building in Manhattan to isolate the impact of noise on health and education. They found children in lower, noisier floors were worse at reading than their higher-up peers, an effect that was most pronounced for children who had lived in the building for longest.

Those studies have been replicated for the impact of aircraft noise with similar results. Not only does noise cause higher blood pressure and worsens quality of sleep, it also stymies pupils trying to concentrate in class.

As with many forms of pollution, the poorest are typically the hardest hit. The worst-off in any city often live by busy roads in poorly-insulated houses or flats, cheek by jowl with packed-in neighbours.

The US Department of Transport recently mapped road and aircraft noise across the United States. Predictably, the loudest areas overlapped with some of the country’s most deprived. Those included the south side of Atlanta and the lowest-income areas of LA and Seattle.

Yet as noise pollution grows in line with road and air traffic and rising urban density, public policy has turned a blind eye.

Council noise response services, formally a 24-hour defence against neighbourly disputes, have fallen victim to local government cuts. Decisions on airport expansion and road development pay scant regard to their audible impact. Political platforms remain silent on the loudest poison.

This is odd at a time when we have never had more tools at our disposal to deal with the issue. Electric Vehicles are practically noise-less, yet noise rarely features in the arguments for their adoption. Just replacing today’s bus fleet would transform city centres; doing the same for taxis and trucks would amount to a revolution.

Vehicles are just the start. Millions were spent on a programme of “Warm Homes”; what about “Quiet Homes”? How did we value the noise impact in the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, and how do we compensate people now that it’s going ahead?

Construction is a major driver of decibels. Should builders compensate “noise victims” for over-drilling? Or could regulation push equipment manufacturers to find new ways to dampen the sound of their kit?

Of course, none of this addresses the noise pollution we impose on ourselves. The bars and clubs we choose to visit or the music we stick in our ears. Whether pumping dance tracks in spin classes or indie rock in trendy coffee shops, people’s desire to compensate for bad noise out there by playing louder noise in here is hard to control for.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 heralded a new era of city life, one where smog and grime gave way to clear skies and clearer lungs. That fight still goes on today.

But some day, we will turn our attention to our clogged-up airwaves. The decibels will fall. #Twitter will give way to twitter. And every now and again, as we step from our homes into city life, we may just hear the sweetest sound of all. Silence.

Adam Swersky is a councillor in Harrow and is cabinet member for finance. He writes in a personal capacity.