Today's Datablast: What would Jesus do? We have answers. Photo: Getty.
Show Hide image

We think Jesus would do what we would do

Many of us are unsure, but when we do offer an opinion of Jesus it is slightly coloured by our own views.

For more political data, explore May2015.com, where this article originally appeared. 

What would Jesus do? YouGov have polled the public.

He would want open borders and to renationalise the railways, but be undecided about gay marriage and oppose the death penalty. But many of us are unsure. At least a third of voters – and sometimes more than half – can’t muster an answer to these hypotheticals.

Do these questions also reveal something about us as voters? While people seem to mainly answer the questions without regard to their political beliefs, there are clear divides between voters of different parties. The poll shows what we might expect – our view of Jesus’ opinions is partly determined by our own.

Take immigration.

A third of us think Jesus would want “no restrictions at all” – open borders! Even the Green Party don’t think that. Only 1 in 20 of us think Jesus would want no immigration at all. Another 10 per cent think he would want tighter limits.

But that varies greatly between the parties. A third of Ukippers think Jesus would want no immigration or tighter borders, but only 6 per cent of Lib Dems agree. (As always with individual polls, we are looking at small sample sizes with high margins of error.)

What about gay marriage? It’s another issue that divides the liberal and the conservative, and again each think Jesus would tend towards their view.

Only a fifth of Ukippers think Jesus would support gay marriage, while around half of Labour and Lib Dem voters think he would.

As a country we can’t decide. Just over a third of voters say Jesus would be supportive, just under a third say he wouldn’t. (This echoes a “Jesus survey” YouGov ran of American voters in July.)

The even more startling differences are by age – just as they are on the issue itself. Here is how opinions of Jesus’ view on gay marriage differ by age group:

We can find a similar story in the rest of the data. Only 30 per cent of Tories think Jesus would want to renationalise the railways, but closer to a half of Labour and Lib Dem voters think so. And a third of Ukippers think Jesus would favour the death penalty, while fewer than a sixth of mainstream voters think he would.

But we can over-emphasise this bias. Even Tory voters agree Jesus would be three times more likely to support than oppose renationalising the railways. And Ukip voters, who are vehemently pro-death penalty, are divided on whether Jesus would agree with them.

Finally, how does religion affect people’s views? The only significant difference YouGov pick up is on gay marriage: 40 of those without a religion think Jesus would support gay marriage; 31 per cent of Christians think he wouldn’t.

What would Jesus do? If we offer an opinion, it’s likely to be shaped by our own.

Explore May2015.com.

May2015 is the New Statesman's new elections site. Explore it for data, interviews and ideas on the general election.

Getty
Show Hide image

Air pollution: 5 steps to vanquishing an invisible killer

A new report looks at the economics of air pollution. 

110, 150, 520... These chilling statistics are the number of deaths attributable to particulate air pollution for the cities of Southampton, Nottingham and Birmingham in 2010 respectively. Or how about 40,000 - that is the total number of UK deaths per year that are attributable the combined effects of particulate matter (PM2.5) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx).

This situation sucks, to say the very least. But while there are no dramatic images to stir up action, these deaths are preventable and we know their cause. Road traffic is the worst culprit. Traffic is responsible for 80 per cent of NOx on high pollution roads, with diesel engines contributing the bulk of the problem.

Now a new report by ResPublica has compiled a list of ways that city councils around the UK can help. The report argues that: “The onus is on cities to create plans that can meet the health and economic challenge within a short time-frame, and identify what they need from national government to do so.”

This is a diplomatic way of saying that current government action on the subject does not go far enough – and that cities must help prod them into gear. That includes poking holes in the government’s proposed plans for new “Clean Air Zones”.

Here are just five of the ways the report suggests letting the light in and the pollution out:

1. Clean up the draft Clean Air Zones framework

Last October, the government set out its draft plans for new Clean Air Zones in the UK’s five most polluted cities, Birmingham, Derby, Leeds, Nottingham and Southampton (excluding London - where other plans are afoot). These zones will charge “polluting” vehicles to enter and can be implemented with varying levels of intensity, with three options that include cars and one that does not.

But the report argues that there is still too much potential for polluters to play dirty with the rules. Car-charging zones must be mandatory for all cities that breach the current EU standards, the report argues (not just the suggested five). Otherwise national operators who own fleets of vehicles could simply relocate outdated buses or taxis to places where they don’t have to pay.  

Different vehicles should fall under the same rules, the report added. Otherwise, taking your car rather than the bus could suddenly seem like the cost-saving option.

2. Vouchers to vouch-safe the project’s success

The government is exploring a scrappage scheme for diesel cars, to help get the worst and oldest polluting vehicles off the road. But as the report points out, blanket scrappage could simply put a whole load of new fossil-fuel cars on the road.

Instead, ResPublica suggests using the revenue from the Clean Air Zone charges, plus hiked vehicle registration fees, to create “Pollution Reduction Vouchers”.

Low-income households with older cars, that would be liable to charging, could then use the vouchers to help secure alternative transport, buy a new and compliant car, or retrofit their existing vehicle with new technology.

3. Extend Vehicle Excise Duty

Vehicle Excise Duty is currently only tiered by how much CO2 pollution a car creates for the first year. After that it becomes a flat rate for all cars under £40,000. The report suggests changing this so that the most polluting vehicles for CO2, NOx and PM2.5 continue to pay higher rates throughout their life span.

For ClientEarth CEO James Thornton, changes to vehicle excise duty are key to moving people onto cleaner modes of transport: “We need a network of clean air zones to keep the most polluting diesel vehicles from the most polluted parts of our towns and cities and incentives such as a targeted scrappage scheme and changes to vehicle excise duty to move people onto cleaner modes of transport.”

4. Repurposed car parks

You would think city bosses would want less cars in the centre of town. But while less cars is good news for oxygen-breathers, it is bad news for city budgets reliant on parking charges. But using car parks to tap into new revenue from property development and joint ventures could help cities reverse this thinking.

5. Prioritise public awareness

Charge zones can be understandably unpopular. In 2008, a referendum in Manchester defeated the idea of congestion charging. So a big effort is needed to raise public awareness of the health crisis our roads have caused. Metro mayors should outline pollution plans in their manifestos, the report suggests. And cities can take advantage of their existing assets. For example in London there are plans to use electronics in the Underground to update travellers on the air pollution levels.

***

Change is already in the air. Southampton has used money from the Local Sustainable Travel Fund to run a successful messaging campaign. And in 2011 Nottingham City Council became the first city to implement a Workplace Parking levy – a scheme which has raised £35.3m to help extend its tram system, upgrade the station and purchase electric buses.

But many more “air necessities” are needed before we can forget about pollution’s worry and its strife.  

 

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.