The Guardian carries an ICM poll this morning suggesting that 87% of people think Osama bin Laden is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared to 75% for George W Bush, 69% for Kim Jong-il, 65% for Hassan Nasrallah and 62% for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Other than the fact that British people don’t like George Bush much, which is hardly a surprise, what does it mean? Probably not much. The answers are probably a mixture of peoples’ opinions of the five men, of whether they think they are actually likely to start some form of conflict and of whether they have the ability to start whatever level of conflict people are considering when they answer the question (after all, Hassan Nasrallah is probably an extreme threat to peace in the immediately locality of Israel, somewhat less so on a world stage. George Bush has a military reach that extends across the globe. Osama bin Laden lives in a cave). At the core of the question is the unspoken question of who is the threat to world peace, who carries the moral responsibility for any conflict - the state who defies the world by developing nuclear weapons, or the state that takes military action against a state to stop it developing nuclear weapons?
The story make a very good newspaper headline, but beyond George W Bush’s unpopularity I’m not sure it really tells us anything.
The poll also asked whether the invasion of Iraq was justified. 71% of people said no. This would be a new high in opposition to the war in Iraq, but I suspect that the wording was that normally used by ICM (which mentions approval or disapproval, rather than justification) so it may not be comparable.
UPDATE: topping the poll in the Spine’s report of the figures was Heather Mills-McCartney, somewhat ahead of the Chuckle brothers. These might not be based on the actual tables…
6 Responses
One way to clarify this might be a poll based on T=C*I. This was a simple way of understanding threats used as far back as the 60’s where T is “Threat” and C and I are “capability” and “Intent”.
Thus on a scale from 0 to 10, with regards to the Uk the united states could be said to have huge capability (10) but no intent (0) and thus is not a threat (10*0=0).
A sort of Yougov poll would need tomake clear it was talking about , the threat too. It could be world peace or mainland UK or whatever. The next part is the 0 to 10 for capability and intent, as this seperates how willing people are to attack from the damage we think they can do.
In both cases people assesssment or perceptio of both intent and capability are as important as the actual threat. as a rule of thumb, forget about anything under 10 and get very worried at over 50.
If we look at Bin Laden prior to 9/11 he would probably have scored under 25, say 8 intent but not even 3 capability. Post 9/11 he would shoot way up as the twin towers put his capability probably over 6 or 7.
Thats still no where near as capable as the chinese or Russians but they don’t have the intent, so it’s legitamate to put resources in to the highest current threat. the issue is does the threat justify the resources we have put in and things like iraq or have we lost the plot.
The post 9/11 arguement seems to have been saddam is about 30 ( 7 or8 intent, but only 3 or 4 capability, but with WMB capability goes way up to 7 or 8, and that is a huge risk.
As an aside I once tried this for an Independent Scotland in an arc from Ireland through Scandanavia and back t the UK, and couldn’t get anyone to score over ten….
Peter.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:41 pm[...] Startling figures released on Friday show that the British public believe that Heather Mills McCartney is a bigger threat to world peace than George W. Bush. In a survey conducted earlier this week, 91% of the public mentioned the wife of the ex-Beatle when asked to name three dangers the world will face in the coming year. In a lowly third place came North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, who was mentioned by 59% of the public, and in surprise fourth place, with 20% of the public vote, were popular children’s comedy duo, The Chuckle Brothers. [...]
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:21 pmSorry, this is not related, but I am 15 and intrested in politics, I would be intrested in a voting intention poll that asked people under 18.
November 3rd, 2006 at 6:41 pmHave you see any polls like this that you could direct me too or do you know of anyone I could write to about this as a idea?
Johnathan,
try the BBcCweb site, at most elections they report the results of school elections and you might find something thee.
There is also the electoral commission and the campaign for electoral reform. all three will probably have something and my experience is that they are all good at replying to e-mails.
Failing that a Google of most of the key words will probably find something.
As an outside bet try the BPS ( british psychological society) as they know aboutsocial research in to just about everything.
Peter.
November 4th, 2006 at 6:09 pmThanks very much for your help Peter.
November 4th, 2006 at 7:33 pmThis last statistic is perhaps the most devastating news long-term for Republicans, as it means that the previously rudderless Democratic Party has finally found an issue to rally around and that issue is the end of George Bush and Dick Cheney’s war.So with loyal allies getting the boot, the people wanting new blood and pledging to only elect politicians who will end the war, and an almost certain Democratic Inquisition waiting in the wings, what’s an administration loyal Republican to do?Simple.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:25 am