Already a subscriber? Log in
Had our poll been mere neoconservative snake oil, we would not have asked whether people wished to pursue a foreign policy closer to that of the US or whether they would prefer closer links with Europe — nor would I have spent a third of my analysis highlighting the result, which found 45 per cent to 14 in favour of Europe. However, we also reported that, by 53 per cent to 12, respondents supported a tougher, rather than a more conciliatory, foreign policy — a finding that Matthew doesn’t query.
Matthew also mistakenly detects a conspiracy: he claims we didn’t publish the shares of ‘don’t know’ respondents, which he argues were suspiciously large and proof that many refused to answer ‘leading’ questions. In fact, we explicitly published the ‘don’t knows’ in the five pie charts; we didn’t explicitly include them in the detailed results from all 15 questions because of space constraints, but their shares were obvious by deduction. The full results were published on spectator.co.uk.
Matthew accuses me of dismissing those who support closer ties with Europe as suffering from ‘false consciousness’, and claims that I argue that the ‘public’s choice is not an available option because the EU is incapable of developing robust policies on terrorism’. In fact, I didn’t criticise European domestic anti-terrorism policies, which are often tougher than Britain’s, but merely pointed out that the electorate is wrong to think that it can have both a more aggressive foreign policy and closer ties with Europe. This is not Marxist mumbo-jumbo, merely a statement of political reality.
Matthew also misunderstands the question on ‘passenger profiling’, which found widespread support for using ‘background’ or ‘appearance’ as criteria for airport searches. ‘Background’ could mean that a young man who has repeatedly travelled to Pakistan would be searched more carefully, regardless of ethnicity or clothing; in some cases, people’s physical appearance would mean they would be singled out for more questioning, sometimes to find out more about their background, as practised successfully by Israeli security for decades.
When asked whether they think we are in a global war on terror, or that Islamic terrorism is merely a regional problem that poses no real threat to us, the public plumps for the former. Matthew would have liked a third option to allow people to say that we are at risk but not at war as such. Unlike his other criticisms, this is a fair comment, but there was good reason to ask our particular question: many commentators claim that the terror attacks in the West are mere ‘retaliation’ for our involvement in the Middle East and that terrorism is therefore ‘really’ a local problem we have got ourselves caught up in; our findings suggest that most people think it is more complicated.
The Spectator/YouGov poll was both soundly constructed and fairly reported;
it reveals an increasing public hawkishness but also intense anti-Americanism. I have been a fan of Matthew’s superb, beautifully written columns ever since I was old enough to read a newspaper and will continue to turn to them for enlightenment. I just wish he would have a more open mind on terrorism.
Also in Society
Also by Allister Heath
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in