| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| New post-Madrid UK poll: War still OK, but lefties prepared to scatter like vermin |
| 2004-03-17 |
| Almost half British voters believe it was right to go to war in Iraq despite the Madrid attacks, but most believe we are now more vulnerable to terrorism, a Sky News/YouGov poll says. The poll is the first to be carried out since Thursday’s bombings, and since Spain’s ruling Popular Party lost power in Sunday’s General Election. A total of 1,532 voters were questioned online on Monday. The poll suggests that the Madrid attacks have had little impact on voting intentions. The Conservatives still have 39%, five points ahead of Labour on 34%. The Liberal Democrats have 20%. Internet pollsters - biased towards the technologically-competent. Unfortunately, this may bias against lefites. Not sure whether YouGov operates to eliminate out bias though, based on respondees’ profiles... When asked if the US and Britain were right or wrong to take military action against Iraq, 48% said they were right - 41% they were wrong. That result is similar to other YouGov polls in recent months. If, however, there was a terror attack, a fifth of Labour voters at the last election said they could desert the party. Labour voters: hey terrorists, they’re stimulus-response trainable, like rats! The poll asked whether a terrorist attack in Britain, like the one in Madrid would make them more likely or less likely to support Labour in the next general election. Eight percent said more likely, 20% said less likely. It seems the war in Iraq is likely to be more of a vote loser with more than a quarter - 27% - of Labour supporters in 2001 saying it could make them switch sides. Eight percent said they would be more likely to vote Labour. When asked whether Britain’s role in the Iraq war had made the country more vulnerable or less vulnerable to attack by Islamic terrorists, 75% said it made the country more vulnerable, just 1% said less vulnerable, while 22% said it made no difference. There you have it, Bin Laden - because so many left-wing voters are cowardly scum who run from threats at the first opportunity, looks like Britain’s a prime target for ya! Mmmm, malleable electorates! |
| Posted by:Bulldog |
| #23 It's late and I'm in tears. Oh man! |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-3-18 12:29:52 AM |
| #22 LOL dot. But it's like your post of yesterday, linking the happy Meme of the Day to the libs. It's not a new thing... in 1936 happy pink marching morons were everywhere... but when the nut cuttin time came a lot of the happy youth were flying Hurricanes and manning the AA batteries. I mean it was cool to be a commie for awhile but it was way the bejesus cooler to fly a Spitfire. I'm certain that's clear. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-3-17 6:58:19 PM |
| #21 AHM - Tories aka Conservatives are right wing tho tend towards the authoritarian. Examples: Thatcher, and Churchill. Labour are the traditional left-wing socialists, though of late, under Blair, they've tried to take the middle road, with successes electorally and economically. More pro-European than the Tories, who tend towards the Euro-sceptic. Lib Dems - opportunistic, mainly to the left of Labour nowadays. High tax, cloud dwelling idiotarians. Best ignored. .com LOL! I'd imagine similar scenes if the antiwar folks had run into a column of Chelsea Pensioners. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-3-17 6:52:35 PM |
| #20 Sorry: ...profiteering... - Sheesh. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-3-17 6:07:26 PM |
| #19 Ship - "the pacifists are the liars, they really will fight" Are you talking about the Mother of All LLL Battles: Giant Puppet vs Giant Puppet? I can see the future history now... "On the plains of [help me out here, folks...] |
| Posted by: .com 2004-3-17 6:06:22 PM |
| #18 ...would the average UK voter say "ah, its all cause of Iraq, id better vote for Lib Dem" or would they say "argh, Labours really screwed up, time to vote Tory" That would be the fundamental difference between the opposers and the appeasers, I suppose. Not really a question I can answer. Perhaps someone needs to commission a poll asking such questions as: "is compromise with terrorists something our government should consider?" etc. wrt to Disraeli - surely you meant "Gladstone types" since Disraeli WAS a Tory. D'oh! Yes, I realised my mistake there soon after posting. Though I think like Gladstone, Disraeli flirted with both sides early on. But I might be wrong there too. I know you know your British political history much better than I do! You can keep tracks on the odious activities of the Lib Debs through LibDemWatch. Yes, I really don't like 'em... |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-3-17 5:59:43 PM |
| #17 AHM damn straight. I still say we should have leased the Shitty Kitty to the RN for a couple of weeks. As it was... the British Sea Harriers got the best heat seeking missle in the world. It was a good thing. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-3-17 5:50:04 PM |
| #16 the ginger liberal, goes by the name of kennady, now there is a man of proud status,proud of being a true lefty cunt. If i saw him in the street i'd run over and start k..... sorry dreaming of thrahing him again |
| Posted by: Jon Shep U.K 2004-3-17 4:12:24 PM |
| #15 Me like Brits. Me no understand your political system though. The only thing I know is Blair is our friend for now, and that's enough for me. Although, I wonder, what would have happened if Ronald Ray-gun and Margaret Thatcher had been leading the free world around 9/11? I'd hate to be a terrorist that's for sure. Could someone give this Yank a simplisme lesson on Torrie, Labo-with-a-u-r? I think I can figure out the Lib Dem part ;-) |
| Posted by: AllahHateMe 2004-3-17 3:48:34 PM |
| #14 "I may be being presumptuous here, but the Spanish who turned out to vote and swung the election were the ones who have little political savvy, and no idea about long term strategies, particularly as regards the WoT." But thats my point - they werent voting for the left over the right - they were voting for the "outs" over the "ins" If (heaven forbid) there were to be a terrorist blast of Madrid scale in central London would the average UK voter say "ah, its all cause of Iraq, id better vote for Lib Dem" or would they say "argh, Labours really screwed up, time to vote Tory"? BTW, wrt to Disraeli - surely you meant "Gladstone types" since Disraeli WAS a Tory. The odd thing of course is that the Soc Dems who went on to merge with the Liberals WERE right wing Labour, who fled the sinking ship of the loony leftist like Tony Benn et al. (Pardon my obsessive interest in UK politics, I find it endlessly fascinating) |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-3-17 3:05:45 PM |
| #13 The Brits are maybe the only population in the world where the pacifists are the liars, they really will fight. How many signers of the Oxford Pledge ending up dying in WWII? (AKA as Dad sez... the Big One) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-3-17 2:38:23 PM |
| #12 I think its significant that the poll didn't mention where the 20% of labor defectors would go. If they would go more to the Left, you can bet your bottom dollar/pound that this would be mentioned. God forbid that they'd go with the Tories and demand the return of the Iron Lady... |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-3-17 1:56:01 PM |
| #11 Interesting points, LH Here in Rburg we tend to think grand strategy - at least here in the US lots of common folk think of it as a homeland security issue - i presume the common folks in the UK see it similarly Indeed. But didn't the myopic homeland security perspective do in for Spain? I may be being presumptuous here, but the Spanish who turned out to vote and swung the election were the ones who have little political savvy, and no idea about long term strategies, particularly as regards the WoT. That's why they weren't intending to vote. Emotionally-driven voters would make mistakes. 80% of Labour voters say they stay with labor. This glass is mainly full That's an astonishing thing to say! These people are basically admitting that if terrorists choose to hit the UK (and the bomber can always eventually get through, if determined enough), they will oblige them by switching allegiances, and, like the Spanish, I'd bet my bottom dollar most would go for appeasement rather than stronger confrontation. Maybe I'm wrong, but the next election would be a three-horse race, with the opposers' vote would be split Labour/Tory (assuming Labour's not had a regime change) whilst the Lib Dems would have a monopoly on the appeasers' vote. Swing and apathetic voters with myopia are going to go appeasement just to stop the hurtin'. Try explaining to them they have to endure more hurt... Would a huge influx of rural lib dems dilute the lefties in the party The nature of the frustrated Lib Dem wannabe MP is not something I'm too familiar with, but I'd hazard a guess that ther aren't a bunch of dusty old Disraeli types who'd rise to the new challenge. As far as I'm concerned, the entire Lib Dem party is a bunch of misguided, nanny-statist, political opportunists whose idea of an enlightened national defence strategy would be unilateral disarmanent. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-3-17 12:37:10 PM |
| #10 I'm sitting in the back row with you badanov, sophmores are welcome. As to the poll, I'd say minds are made up. With lots of suspicions on when, not if the UK gets hit. I think the only reason they havn't is due to a dilligent UK. I think it's the same here in USA. Of topic, KVI Seattle radio will have a live interview with Brian Suits(?) any min. He's a local talkshow host on KVI that was mobilised for duty in Iraq. He's a bootstraps army LT. Cool guy |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-3-17 12:01:46 PM |
| #9 1. 80% of Labour voters say they stay with labor. This glass is mainly full. 2. They dont say if theyd go Lib Dem or Tory. If you assume it would all wusses saying "we must leave Iraq" it should all go to Lib Dems. If OTOH, its just folks saying "the govt aint done its job" they might go Tory. Here in Rburg we tend to think grand strategy - at least here in the US lots of common folk think of it as a homeland security issue - i presume the common folks in the UK see it similarly 3. Even assuming a Lib Dem revival - what would lots of new MP's do to the makeup of the Lib Dems?? Arent alot of the rural Lib Dems really old centrist Liberals, not funky new lefties? Would a huge influx of rural lib dems dilute the lefties in the party? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-3-17 11:50:41 AM |
| #8 British Parliamentary Politics (1204) Bulldog and Howard UK, Co-Professors Uhmm, okay if I audit this class? |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-3-17 11:47:11 AM |
| #7 ...I'm not suggesting I'm hoping for terrorist attacks in order to bring in a Tory government, before anyone gets the wrong idea. Or that terrorist attacks would influence voting patterns at all. Ideally they would be able to be ignored by the electorate, as all the candidates would have a uniformly robust attitude towards fighting such crimes. After all, there are a lot who aren't pussies on the Labour benches. Can't say the same for the Lib Dems. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-3-17 11:18:16 AM |
| #6 Fair point. Still, I do think we're a way from the Lib Dems winning owt. With recent events, however, I would agree that we can't really rule anything out. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-3-17 11:11:52 AM |
| #5 There are enough rural constituencies with strong Lib Dem challenges to make it happen if large-scale defection from Labour occurred. Besides, it seems the Spanish fell primarily because the otherwise apathetic heaved themselves out of their recliner chairs and voted. If half the UK's non-voters were impelled to vote by a terrorist atrocity in the UK, and most of them voted for the only anti-war / appeasement party (Lib Dem), that would transform the predicted results, wouldn't it? I'm not saying the Tories wouldn't win in the event of terrorist attacks. I hope they would, but I'm envisaging some worst-case scenarios here. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-3-17 11:05:36 AM |
| #4 Too many staunchly conservative rural constituencies exist for this scenario. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-3-17 10:52:35 AM |
| #3 ...if Labour don't get in then the Tories will... I'd like to be so sure. One good terror campaign and the Lib Dems could easily be up level with the Tories and Labour. In a no outright majority situation, it's possible/probable we'd end up with a Labour/Lib Dem coalition. Or there could be a Tory annihilation: Labour just holding the inner cities and the Lib Dems taking the combined rural constituencies' left-wing & appeasers' vote. Who'd be laughing then? Not me... |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-3-17 10:47:29 AM |
| #2 From Sky - prob made up. (Joke) Don't panic. if Labour don't get in then the Tories will, and the Tories are warmongerers to the core. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-3-17 10:36:45 AM |
| #1 How pathetic. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-3-17 10:27:19 AM |