Blair 'Not Trusted to Lead Britain into War'

[cal04]

More than half of voters would not trust Tony Blair to take Britain to war again, according an opinion poll today. The YouGov poll for the Sunday Times found that 57% would not trust Mr Blair to lead the country into another conflict after the Iraq war as against 31% who would.

Some 46% said that they believed he had deliberately distorted the intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, compared with 43% who thought that he genuinely believed what he had said. The poll found that 56% thought he would have gone to war regardless of what the intelligence said while only 36% said that he acted on the basis of the intelligence.

By a majority of two to one – 61% to 28% – the poll found voters believed that Mr Blair should now apologise to the country for the war. But despite the disillusion with Mr Blair, the poll still showed Labour level pegging with the Tories on 33%, with the Liberal Democrats on 22%.

YouGov surveyed 1,717 voters online on July 16 and 17.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3220644

[AP]

1. Probably due to phrasing of the question. Who wants to go to war?

If you phrased quesiton, "Do you trust Blair to lead Britain in a war?" or "If Britain were at war, would you trust Blair's leadership" you'd see much much better numbers for Blair.

This question was designed to get that result.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. I disagree

The poll is clearly about whether Blair is trusted to lead a nation into war. Of those asked, 57% would not.

That wasn't the only question asked. The other questions put some gloss on the above response:

46% believe Blair deliberately distorted intelligence as opposed to
43% believe he actually believed what he was saying.

56% believe Blair would have gone to war regardless of what the intelligence said.

That shows a high level of distrust.

Blair may be at a disadvantage for following Bush into this war. It is even more difficult to believe that the Bushies didn't know they were using distorted intelligence. The OSP was constituted in the Pentagon for the purpose of distorting intelligence. A report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace shows that there is a correlation between increased visits by policy makers to intelligence centers and the use of more urgent language in intelligence reports, suggesting that pressure was applied by policy makers to intelligence analysts.

MI6 may have been guilty of distorting intelligence, perhaps under duress, or they may have been influenced by the distorted information from US intelligence.

Either way, Mr. Blair showed poor judgment making an alliance with Bush. Blair laid down with dogs and got up with fleas. He deserves his problems.

[AP]

3. That more than half of britons think he didn't distort evidence and that

almost 60% think he's being honest with them esepcially after all that has happened, suggests that that "lead to war" question might be an anomally. I think if you phrased it differently, more than half of britons would have answered it in Blair's favor.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. No, only 43% think he genuinely believed what he said

The others are undecided. And 54% is not 'almost 60%' anyway. That's spin worthy of the Republicans, AP.

The 'lead to war' question does not look like an anomaly. Quotes from the original Sunday Times article:
"This lack of trust extends to other areas. Fewer than one-third, 29%, say they trust Blair on public services, against 54% who do not."
and:
"By about two to one, 61% to 28%, voters say the prime minister should apologise to the country over Iraq. Whether this would do him much good, however, is open to doubt. Well over half, 59%, say Blair has been damaged “a great deal” by the war and its aftermath, while 31% say he has been damaged, but only slightly.

This is confirmed by another finding. Blair, once regarded as his party’s greatest asset, is now seen as a liability by 45% of people. Only 21% say he is an asset. Fewer than half of Labour supporters — 49% — think he is an asset. "

[AP]

10. I read the sentences quickly

and I misread the second stat.

Honestly read them wrong. Sorry.

[MoonRiver]

5. I'm just curious as to why you seem to be such a Blair apologist.

You are going out of your way to distort the poll in his favor. :shrug:

I used to like Blair, but he lost all credibity when he began his unholy alliance with bush*. I'm hardly surprised that the Brits, who despise *, and were opposed to the war, now distrust Tony regarding any other future military adventures he may be considering. Thank God for the sane people in this world.

[SquireJons]

6. Let me hear an Amen...

While I agree with Muriel that wording is important and can influence results, this poll seems pretty clear. A large and growing portion of the British public distrusts Blair. I suspect that a high percentage of his supporters do so out of patriotism rather than genuine empathy. This in spite of several high level cover up "investigations" that went his way.

The real question to me is why more Americans aren't openly questioning our own mis-leader. I believe that corporate ownership of the media is the prime reason, but I question the wisdom, ethics, and intellectual capacity of the majority of Americans these days. We have become fat, selfish and ignorant to go along with our institutional arrogance. It could be that bush is exactly what the majority of amerikkkans want in 2004.

What then?

[MoonRiver]

7. I'm hoping that all the horrors wrought by bush*co are waking people up.

This country has never witnessed a coup, at least not in my lifetime. We have grown fat and complacent, but maybe, just maybe that is changing. It's hard to really know, though, because I distrust the corporate polls just as much as their media counterparts (in fact, most of them spin from media sources). I suspect Kerry is ahead by more than these polls reveal. If so, it would indicate that Americans are finally getting it.

O8)

[AP]

9. Because I remember what the Tories were like.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. That's what most people don't realize

in England, Blair is the leader of the Labor Party, which would be equivalent to the Dems, while the Tories are conservative and more like the Repugs.

For the Brits, their only choice is Blair or a Tory. Hence, the support for Blair despite his major shortcomings.

[AP]

12. The Tories were more reactionary than Republicans and relied

on more hateful sentiments, and ruined the lives of working class people without regard for social justice, fairness, or any sense of humanity.

Blair has a real committment to seeing that political, economic and cultural power flow down to the people. Granted, personal debt is up, which stinks, but salaries are up, and wealth in the bottom two quintiles (IIUC) has increased more than in the top three quintiles since Blair has taken control. And it's no accident. These are his priorities.

I also think that his tuition plan is one of the most progressive anti-wealth concentration, economy-improving programs I've seen in just about any area of policy.

And people don't get it. So I think I should take some responsibility for defending the guy.

[KoKo]

16. One name: Charles Kennedy...Liberal Democrats / and the link...

http://www.libdems.org.uk/index.cfm/page.main/section.parliamentary

[AP]

18. I don't find the LibDems a reasonable alternative.

I know that the labor party is committed to flowing economic, political and cultural power down to the people. I know that that is their compass. Lib Dems seem to believe that compasses aren't required.

I think of Blair as a bridge to the future -- he's not perfect -- and I also appreciate the role that the LibDems play in building that bridge. However, I really believe that Blair is building that bridge the only way it can possibly be built.

If he did some of the things that people here think he should do, you'd see Tories win the next election. I don't think people appreciate how institutionally conservative the UK is (and how, socially, it teeters on the edge of being reactionary). I think people don't appreciate as well what is going on in the press right now in the UK. It's my impression that the public and quasi-public media in the UK know that they're in a transitional phase and soon the news business is going to be cut off from the entertainment business. I think they realize there's a ton of money to be made by totally privatizing entertainment, and they want a government in place that's going to do that in a way that guarantees profit for the already powerful--and they suspect that the Tories will do that for them, rather than Labour.

I believe that Blair is doing everything he can to deinstitutionalize conservativsim, but he's doing at a pace and according to a strategy which will ensure that he finishes the job.

[T_i_B]

24. Well they found the Lib Dems a reasonable alternative

in the Brent East and Leicester South by-elections recently (which the Lib Dems won off labour). Wonder why?

[SquireJons]

22. Blair is not the entire Labor Party

I agree that the Tories are bad (though not as bad as the GOP in my opinion) but the choice should not be between Blair and the Tories. There is a movement afoot to replace Blair as the head of the Labor Party. That would be the best possible outcome.

In a way, Blair is worse than the Tories, because he is sugar coated arsenic. By preaching moderation, he has lead his country down a dead end street. Most see the Tories for what they are - money grubbing elitists. But Blair has become a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Blair must go.

[AP]

25. I really disagree with that sentiment.

My perspective is that Labour was the perpetual one-term party. They'd get in power, and the left wing of the party would drag them so far to the left that they'd lose the next election.

As a result, the overall arc of British politics was to bend to the right.

In the UK, the Prime Minister has so much power that you can really totally mould government in the image you chose, so the value of being in power is actually kind of limited as a result. None of the changes you make can have much permanance.

The real power is much more institutionally-derived, but, even more than that, it's in the hearts and minds of the people -- because their sentiments are the ones that ultimately determine who will be PM.

(In the US, government is designed to only allow incremental change. The UK is VERY different.)

The UK is EXTREMLEY institutionally conservative, and the hearts and minds of the electorate are easily moulded by a fairly conservative press, and the people themselves hang on to tradition because that sentiment is also designed into the system.

I see what Blair is doing is holding on to power not so that he can implement his legislative agenda (which can all be undone just as rapidly by the next Tory PM). What he's doing is trying to change Britain institutionally so that people's hearts and minds reject conservative impulses (like holding on to tradition in a really unproductive way).

What Blair is doing is actually quite brilliant, and I know a lot of people don't get it (especially if you're right in the middle of it). But I think if anyone looks back in 25 or 40 years and does an honest assessment of what Blair is doing politically, they'll realize that he was trying to take Britain forward in giant but subtle leaps which were meant to undo many of the insitutional realities of British society which, prior to now, almost guaranteed that progress would be transient and that the overall arc of british society would be a curve to the right.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Blair deserves his problems

And those poll numbers show that he has a lot of them. Where do you get that 60% think he's being honest with them"? That's not the way I read it.

Even if he didn't distort the intelligence personally, he knew or had reason to know that its conclusions were doubtful. He knew or had reason to know that intelligence was being distorted in the US to support the case for war. He knew or had reason to know that members of the American junta are bald faced liars.

Blair has the gall to continue to justify the war on humanitarian grounds, although this has been rejected by Human Right Watch. Prior to the war, Blair called warnings of imperial designs a "conspiracy theory", although the conspiracy is plastered all over the conspirators' website.

The Iraq invasion was an act of colonial piracy, not a liberation. Blair is either a liar or a fool for having bought into it. He should pay a price.

Unfortunately, his opposition isn't strong enough to threaten him. He can lead Labour into another election and win, although with a weakened mandate. If I were British, I'd be signing up with the LibDems.

[Cha]

13. Yes, blair earned every bit of his current problems with

with his santimonious ..let's bomb Iraq, as bush's lap dog.

[Atlanticist]

14. I just did !!!

The trouble is that in Britain, we get to choose from the following :

"New" Labour under Blair, and many underperforming sychophantic cabinet ministers;

Tories under an increasingly ineffectual Michael Howard who seems to be making no inroads into Labour and has been hoist by his own petard by also supporting the war or;

Liberal Democrats, who I found a useful protest vote in the recent European elections, but under our political system, are really a wasted vote. My constituency is a Lab/Tory marginal, so a vote for the Lib Dems at a general election is a somewhat quixotic gesture.

Grrr.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. View from this side of the Pond

The Liberal Democrats in Britain and the New Democrats in Canada both look like a more viable option than the Greens in the US. Did I also see a poll that said the Liberal Democrats have the support of about 22% of the elecorate? The Tories have 33%, but they have the right wing pretty much to themselves (unless you count the fringe elements in the BNP).

Going with the LibDems doesn't seem an idle gesture to me at all.

Nevertheless, something we need in both Britain and America is serious election reform to allow for preferential voting and proportional representation. Such reforms would give the Left a greater influence in politics and put an end to the two-party system that marginalizes progressive voices.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. the viability of voting Lib Dem all depends on the constituency

and with only about 70,000 voters in each, that can vary a lot with the local situation. Atlanticist is in a constituency where the Lib Dems have no chance; I'm in one where Labour has none (they got less than 10% the last time; the Lib Dems won with a margin of 4%).

A reform of the voting system is, not surprisingly, at the top of the Lib Dem wish list. Blair is actually slightly sympathetic to it - he reformed the UK European voting system to have multi-seat constituencies, which is fairer, and set up the Scottish and Welsh national elections to have some proportional representation - which meant Labour ended up in a coalition with the Lib Dems in Scotland. But he stopped short of reforming the Westminster elections. If he has to form a coalition at the next election (not likely so far, but I think it's more likely than the Tories getting in), the Lib Dems might make that their one demand - so that they are better placed in the future.

[Jack Rabbit]

19. Preferential voting (also called Instant Runoff Voting)

The Tories have only about a third of the elctorate now. It would seem reasonable to suppose that that LibDem would be the second choice of most who vote Labour and that Labour would be the overwhelming second choice over the Tories of most who vote LibDem.

Could we surmise that preferential voting would marginalize the Tories while giving a greater voice to the Liberal Democrats?

[Atlanticist]

20. Exactly, my friend, and that's why the Lib Dems

put voting reform at or near the top of their political agenda.

Incidentally (hijacking the thread - but I've got to share this), I was at a breakfast this morning with a very well-to-do English lady in her 80's called Cynthia, who I was expecting to make idle small talk to. It ends up she's grandchildren all over the US who she's incredibly proud of for marching against the war. One of her sons is a judge who's been in hot water for speaking out against the war. I told her I was getting more left-wing the older I got, and she confided in me that she'd studied at the London School of Economics just after the war, and was quite the radical too!! She bemoaned the fact that Labour had forgotten it's roots and should get back to real socialism. I've had a spring in my step all day because of that little chat over the cornflakes!!!

It was a Church away-weekend, at which the entire consensus was the immorality of the war. I live in a very wealthy village, where you'd expect most of the church-goers to be natural Tories, and maybe many are - but they all seemed united in their disgust at the war and the political/religious fracturing that has taken place because of it. I only wish US "Christians" took the same view - Bush would lose by a landslide.

[Jack Rabbit]

23. Related to this subthread

This was just posted on the Editorials/Other Articles forum.

[struggle4progress]

21. Blair Still Set to Win Next Election -- Pollster

Sat Jul 17, 2004 07:59 PM ET
By Paul Majendie

LONDON (Reuters) - More than half of British voters would not trust Prime Minister Tony Blair to take the country to war again, but he will win a general election likely within a year, a leading pollster said Sunday.
<snip>

The poll put Blair's ruling Labor Party and the main opposition Conservatives on 33 percent each, with the Liberal Democrats on 22 percent.

But YouGov pollster Peter Kellner said he still believed the prime minister once dubbed "Teflon Tony" would win a third term.

"The shine has gone off him. But on current form, Labor will still win the next election comfortably," Kellner told Reuters.
<more>

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5697610