In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,008 American adults, three-in-five respondents (62%) agree with the U.S. re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba, while one-in-four (23%) disagree.

Majorities of Independents (67%), Democrats (64%) and Republicans (56%) agree with re-instituting to bilateral ties.

In March 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama eased travel restrictions to Cuba, and allowed U.S. citizens to travel to the island for religious and cultural reasons. Most Americans (57%) believe it is time to lift the travel ban that prevents most Americans from visiting the island.

Half of Americans (51%) would lift the trade embargo with Cuba that has been in place since the 1960s, while three-in-ten (29%) disagree. Most Democrats (53%) and Independents (55%) support ending the embargo, but Republicans are not as convinced (46%).

The notion of supporting non-governmental groups in Cuba in order to foster protests against the current regime did not resonate with Americans. Across the country, only 35 per cent of respondents endorse this course of action.

Two-thirds of Hispanics (67%) support re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba, and their views on the travel ban and the trade embargo mirror those of the entire sample of Americans.

Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)

CONTACT:

Mario Canseco, Vice President, Angus Reid Public Opinion
+877 730 3570
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com

Methodology: From January 27 to January 28, 2012, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 1,008 American adults who are Springboard America panelists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 3.1%. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of the United States. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.

The online survey of a representative sample of 2,025 British adults asked respondents to say whether the 13 politicians who have lived at 10 Downing Street since the end of the Second World War have been “good” or “bad.”

Three-in-five Britons (74%) think Churchill was a good prime minister, while only six per cent believe he was bad. Almost half of respondents (47%) think Margaret Thatcher was a good head of government, but 40 per cent believe she was bad.

Along with Churchill and Thatcher, three other British prime ministers managed to get a larger proportion of “good” responses than “bad” responses: Harold Wilson (37% to 18%), Harold Macmillan (28% to 12%) and Clement Attlee (21% to 10%).

At least two-in-five respondents believe three of the last four British prime ministers have been bad: David Cameron (44%), John Major (45%), and Tony Blair (48%).

The lowest ranked head of government is Gordon Brown, with the proportion of negative reviews outranking positive ones by a 3-to-1 margin (65% to 19%).

Consult our September 2009 survey on Prime Ministers.

Download Full Tables

Download Full Methodology Statement

Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)

CONTACT:

Mario Canseco, Vice President, Angus Reid Public Opinion
+877 730 3570
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com

Methodology: From January 22 to January 23, 2012, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 2,009 randomly selected British adults who are Springboard UK panelists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 2.2%. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region data to ensure samples representative of the entire adult population of Great Britain. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.

In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,001 Canadian adults, 40 per cent of respondents believe Canada made a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan in 2002, while 36 per cent think Canada did the right thing.

The federal government’s decision to keep 950 soldiers in Afghanistan until 2014 in a strictly non-combat role to help train the Afghan military is endorsed by a majority of Canadians (54%), including two thirds of respondents in British Columbia and Alberta (66%).

However, about three-in-five respondents (58%) disagree with extending Canada’s non-combat role after 2014.

Across Canada, two thirds of respondents (65%) disagree with the assertion that Afghanistan will never again become a safe haven for international terrorism, and a similar proportion (69%) believe the war in Afghanistan was not worth the human and financial toll.

Quebecers are more likely to call the mission in Afghanistan a mistake (52%), to disagree with an extension of Canada’s non-combat role (67%), and to state that the war was not worth the human and financial toll (77%).

Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)

CONTACT:

Mario Canseco, Vice President, Angus Reid Public Opinion
+877 730 3570
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com

Methodology: From January 27 to January 28, 2012, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 1,001 randomly selected Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panellists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of Canada. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.

In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,008 American adults, half of respondents (50%) agree with the notion that the U.S. Government should continue to be the global leader to solve international disputes, while two-in-five (41%) disagree.

The proportion of Democrats and Republicans who endorse the continuation of this role for the United States is exactly the same (54%), while Independents are not as convinced about this idea (43%).

The Use of Force and Regime Change

The political divergence is more evident in a question related to the U.S. Government only using force against another nation with authorization from the United Nations (UN). Half of all Americans (50%)—and 49 per cent of Independents—agree with this principle, but Democrats are far more likely to endorse it (63%) than Republicans (37%).

Almost half of Americans (48%) agree with the notion that the U.S. Government should overthrow dictatorships and change regimes if it believes they pose an imminent threat. The views of Democrats (45%) and Independents (44%) are nuanced, while three-in-five Republicans (59%) approve this foreign policy principle.

Torture

Only one third of Americans (34%) believe the U.S. Government should rely on torture to gain information from terrorism suspects. Democrats (24%) are less likely than Independents (37%) and Republicans (45%) to reject this idea.

Analysis

Following the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans appear to be becoming more “dovish” when assessing the potential reach of their federal government in the global stage. Half of respondents want the U.S. to remain the global leader to solve international disputes, but the same proportion also believe force should only be used against another nation in the context of a UN mandate.

A slightly lower number of Americans endorse “regime change” in the event of an imminent threat from a dictatorship, but the idea of using torture to gain information from terrorism suspects is only supported by a third of respondents.

Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)

CONTACT:

Mario Canseco, Vice President, Angus Reid Public Opinion
+877 730 3570
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com

Methodology: From January 27 to January 28, 2012, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 1,008 American adults who are Springboard America panelists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 3.1%. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of the United States. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.

The online survey of a representative provincial sample of 800 British Columbian adults also shows that the New Democratic Party (NDP) has extended its advantage over the governing BC Liberals, who have dropped to their lowest level since Clark took over from Gordon Campbell as party leader.

Political Scene

Across British Columbia, 42 per cent of decided voters and leaners (+2 since November) will support the NDP candidate in their constituency in the next provincial election, followed by the BC Liberals with 28 per cent (-3), the BC Conservatives with 19 per cent (+1) and the BC Greens with 10 per cent (+2).

Half of decided voters in Vancouver Island (51%) and two-in-five in Metro Vancouver (42%) would vote for the NDP in the next provincial election. The BC Conservatives have reached the 20 per cent mark in both Metro Vancouver and the Interior. The BC Liberals are now second to the NDP among men (32% to 37%) and the gap with female voters is becoming wider, with the NDP ahead among women by 23 points (47% to 24%). The governing party post its best results with respondents aged 55 and over (31%, still nine points behind the NDP).

While the NDP is holding on to practically nine-in-ten of its voters in 2009 (88%), the BC Liberals can only count on the support of three-in-five of their supporters in the last provincial ballot (60%). One-in-four BC Liberal voters in 2009 (27%) are now supporting the BC Conservatives and one-in-ten (10%) are choosing the NDP.

Issues, Approval and Momentum

The economy is regarded as the most important issue facing British Columbia by 27 per cent of respondents (-2), followed by health care (21%, +4), leadership (7%), poverty (also 7%), tax relief (6%) and the environment (6%).

The approval rating for Premier and BC Liberals leader Christy Clark is 40 per cent (+1). Official Opposition and NDP leader Adrian Dix improved to 45 per cent (+5). Green Party leader Jane Sterk (25%, +4) and BC Conservative Party leader John Cummins (23%, +4) hold lower numbers, but show positive progress since November.

On the preferred premier question, Dix is the top choice for the first time (26%, +7 since November), followed by Clark (22%, -3), Cummins (8%, -1) and Sterk (3%, +1). Dix continues to be the only provincial party leader able to post a positive momentum score (+6), while Cummins (-2), Sterk (-6) and Clark (-24) had negative numbers once again.

On issues, the advantages of the BC Liberal incumbent have narrowed dramatically. Clark and Dix are virtually tied as being the best person to deal with the economy (24% to 23%) and crime (19% to 20%). Clark is ahead on federal/provincial relations (27% to 21%), but Dix is the clear leader on health care (33% to 20%) and education (30% to 21%). Sterk is regarded as the best leader to deal with the environment (26%, with Dix second at 22%).

Analysis

The last time the BC Liberals dropped below the 30 per cent mark in voting intention, Gordon Campbell was about to deliver his resignation speech in early November 2010. The governing party is now losing a quarter of its electors in 2009 to the BC Conservatives, and Clark has lost her edge on issues like crime and the economy, which her predecessor used to dominate, even at the pinnacle of his unpopularity.

The BC Conservatives are slowly getting closer to the 20 per cent mark at the provincial level, and are gaining ground in Metro Vancouver and the Interior. Still, their leader is not particularly well-known at this stage and is not carrying any significant momentum on issues.

The NDP holds the same level of support it had in the last provincial election, but Dix is now regarded as the best person to head the government in Victoria. The survey also shows that the NDP base appears satisfied with the decision to bring in a new leader. Dix’s predecessor Carole James was not able to be seen as a premier-in-waiting even after the controversy that led to Campbell’s resignation.

Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)

CONTACT:

Mario Canseco, Vice President, Angus Reid Public Opinion
+877 730 3570
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com

Methodology: From January 27 to January 29, 2012, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 800 randomly selected British Columbia adults who are Angus Reid Forum panellists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 3.5%. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of British Columbia. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.

In the online survey of a representative sample of 1,005 Canadian adults, 39 per cent of respondents believe that immigration is having a positive effect in Canada, while 39 per cent think it is having a negative effect.

Views on Legal and Illegal Immigration

Since September 2010, the proportion of Canadians who think immigration is having a positive effect in the country has increased by five points. Respondents aged 18-to-34 are more likely to regard immigration in a positive light (48%) than middle-aged Canadians (33%) and those over the age of 55 (39%).

Two-in-five Canadians (41%) think the number of legal immigrants who are allowed to relocate in Canada should decrease, including almost half of respondents aged 35-to-54 (46%).

The views of Canadians on illegal immigration have hardened over the past 14 months. Half of respondents (50%, +6 since September 2010) believe illegal immigrants in Canada take jobs away from Canadian workers. In addition, only 23 per cent of respondents would allow illegal immigrants to stay in Canada and eventually apply for citizenship, while 50 per cent think illegal immigrants should be required to leave their jobs and be deported.

Multiculturalism

Three-in-five Canadians (62%) think multiculturalism has been good for the country, including 72 per cent of respondents aged 18-to-34. However, more Canadians (58%) are likely to endorse the concept of the melting pot—immigrants assimilating and blending into Canadian society—than the mosaic (30%), where cultural differences within society are valuable and should be preserved.

At least one-in-four respondents believe Canada is an intolerant society towards Muslims (33%), Aboriginal Canadians (28%) and immigrants from South Asia, such as India and Pakistan (25%). A third of Canadians (32%) believe that racism is a significant problem in Canada, while 55 per cent disagree with this view.

Analysis

The proportion of Canadians who believe immigration is having a negative effect in the country is the lowest in the past four years. The main source of hostility appears to be illegal immigration, with half of Canadians calling for unlawful workers to return to their country of origin. This level of support for the deportation of illegal immigrants is 11 points lower than what was observed in Britain in December 2011, but seven points higher than in the United States in December 2010.

Younger Canadians are more likely to back the idea of a “path to citizenship” for illegal workers, but sizeable majorities of middle-aged and older respondents reject this idea.

The positive views on multiculturalism drop markedly with age, from 72 per cent for those aged 18-to-34, to 63 per cent among those aged 35-to-54, and to 50 per cent for those over the age of 55. Middle-aged and older Canadians are also more likely to support the concept of the melting pot than the mosaic.

Review our September 2010 and November 2010 surveys on immigration and multiculturalism.

Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)

CONTACT:

Mario Canseco, Vice President, Angus Reid Public Opinion
+877 730 3570
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com

Methodology: From January 26 to January 27, 2012, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 1,005 randomly selected Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panellists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of Canada. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.

In the online survey of a representative national sample of 2,014 British adults, 71 per cent of respondents (+4 since October 2010) are in favour of legalising euthanasia in the United Kingdom, while 16 per cent (-3) oppose this idea.

More than four-in-five Britons (86%) believe that legalising euthanasia would give people who are suffering an opportunity to ease their pain, and three-in-four (78%) think it would establish clearer guidelines for doctors to deal with end-of-life decisions.

Respondents are evenly divided on whether the legalisation of euthanasia would leave vulnerable people without sufficient legal protection (Agree 42%, Disagree 42%), but three-in-five (61%) reject the notion that it would send the message that the lives of the sick or disabled are less valuable

In 2000, Heather Pratten of Essex pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the suicide of her terminally ill son, Nigel, who suffered from Huntington’s disease. Judge Graham Boal gave Pratten a conditional discharge instead of immediate imprisonment, due to the “exceptional circumstances” of the case.

A majority of Britons (57%) believe that, if a parent is found guilty of assisting a terminally ill son or daughter to die, there should be no penalty at all. Support for this course of action is decidedly higher among respondents over the age of 55 (65%).

In addition, three-in-five Britons (60%) believe that people who help a person to commit suicide should not be prosecuted.

Consult our January 2010 and October 2010 surveys on euthanasia in Britain.

Download Full Tables

Download Full Methodology Statement

Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)

CONTACT:

Mario Canseco, Vice President, Angus Reid Public Opinion
+877 730 3570
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com

Methodology: From January 13 to January 16, 2012, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 2,014 randomly selected British adults who are Springboard UK panelists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 2.2%. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region data to ensure samples representative of the entire adult population of Great Britain. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.

In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,003 American adults, four-in-five respondents (81%) support implementing a federal regulation that would ban the use of hand held cell phones while driving.

The proportion of Americans who would endorse a federal ban on text messaging while driving is higher (92%). However, only 38 per cent of respondents would support a federal regulation that would ban the use of cell phone hands free devices (such as Bluetooth or headsets) while driving.

Analysis

Texting is definitely regarded as a dangerous activity for drivers, with only seven per cent of Americans believing that this practice should be allowed to continue. There are some subtle differences in the way specific age groups feel about drivers using cell phones. While most respondents agree that the use of hand held devices by drivers should not be allowed, Americans aged 18-to-34 are more likely to disagree with this notion (24%) than those aged 35-to-54 (17%) and those over the age of 55 (11%).

When it comes to hands free devices, there is a clear age gap. A majority of Americans over the age of 55 (53%) would ban their use by drivers, but this notion is only supported by about three-in-ten respondents aged 35-to-54 (32%) and aged 18-to-34 (28%).

Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)

CONTACT:

Mario Canseco, Vice President, Angus Reid Public Opinion
+877 730 3570
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com

Methodology: From January 18 to January 19, 2012, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 1,003 American adults who are Springboard America panelists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 3.1%. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of the United States. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.

In the online survey of a representative sample of 1,001 Canadian adults, 51 per cent of respondents believe there should be laws which outline when a woman can have an abortion in Canada. Conversely, 37 per cent of Canadians think there should be no laws on this matter and want women to have the unrestricted right to have an abortion at any time up to the moment of birth.

Among the most populated provinces, Alberta (59%) has the highest proportion of respondents who want to establish abortion laws, while two-in-five Quebecers (40%) would not make any changes. More than half of Conservative and Liberal voters in the 2011 federal election (57% and 52% respectively) call for regulations, while Green Party and New Democratic Party (NDP) voters (51% and 47% respectively) disagree with this notion.

Earlier this month, Rajendra Kale, editor-in-chief of the Canadian Medical Journal (CMAJ), suggested in an editorial that a fetus’s gender should not be revealed to expecting parents until after 30 weeks of pregnancy, in order to prevent female feticide.

Across the country, three-in-five Canadians (60%)—and two-thirds of women (66%)—believe there should be laws which outline whether a woman can have an abortion based solely on the gender of the fetus. Three-in-ten respondents (30%) think a woman should have the unrestricted right to have an abortion in any circumstance.

It is important to note that, while there is a noticeable dissimilarity between supporters of specific political parties on the overall question of abortion laws, a majority of people who voted for each one of the five major parties in 2011 believe that there should be a regulation to deal with gender-based abortion.

Review our August 2010 survey on abortion.

Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)

CONTACT:

Mario Canseco, Vice President, Angus Reid Public Opinion
+877 730 3570
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com

Methodology: From January 19 to January 20, 2012, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 1,001 randomly selected Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panellists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of Canada. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.

In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,009 American adults, 85 per cent of respondents believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution means that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, while only seven per cent openly disagree with this view.

The interpretation of the Second Amendment is similar across party lines and among both gun owners and people who do not possess a firearm.

Americans are split when assessing existing federal regulations related to firearm ownership, with 44 per cent saying they are satisfied with these guidelines, and 44 per cent voicing dissatisfaction.

Republicans (52%), Independents (47%) and gun owners (54%) are more likely to say they are satisfied with the status quo, while Democrats (46%) and those who do not own a gun (47%) are more likely to be dissatisfied.

Across the country, 46 per cent of respondents call for stricter firearms laws, with the highest level of support from Democrats (62%), Independents (51%) and Americans who do not possess a firearm (55%). Conversely, Republicans and gun owners would prefer to have either looser regulations or the continuation of existing ones.

Seven-in-ten Americans hold no reservations about people who are eligible to own firearms having access to handguns (73%) and rifles or shotguns (72%). However, only three-in-ten respondents (30%) feel the same way about semi-automatic weapons, with a majority (61%) suggesting that only the police and other authorized persons should have access to them.

On the question of concealed carry—where states have enacted different regulations—half of respondents (51%) support the “shall-issue” notion of allowing citizens to carry a concealed weapon if they meet specific criteria laid out in the law. It is important to note that this prerogative is endorsed by a majority of Republicans (60%), Independents (53%) and gun owners (60%), as well as a plurality of Democrats (44%) and Americans who do not possess a firearm.

Analysis

The views of Americans on the Second Amendment have not gone through any significant fluctuations over the past two years. Democrats continue to call for stricter firearms regulations, while Republicans are mostly satisfied with the status quo.

Since January 2011, there has been a four-point increase in the proportion of Americans who endorse “shall-issue” jurisdiction to deal with concealed carry. These guidelines are now in place, albeit with different overall requirements, in three of every four American states.

Review our June 2010 and January 2011 surveys on firearms.

Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)

CONTACT:

Mario Canseco, Vice President, Angus Reid Public Opinion
+877 730 3570
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com

Methodology: From January 17 to January 18, 2012, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 1,009 American adults who are Springboard America panelists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 3.1%. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of the United States. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.