Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Blair rating plunges as support for Iraq war drops - poll


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_piehunt_*

Guest_piehunt_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 February 2003 - 08:43 PM

That's what you get for ignoring and underestimating 2 million protesters i guess.


Tony Blair's popularity has plunged to minus 20 according to a new poll.

The Guardian/ICM poll also shows Labour's overall lead over the Conservatives has dramatically decreased by five points - from 13 to eight - over the past month.

Meanwhile, for the first time, the poll shows a clear majority - 52% - opposing war with Iraq. Support for the war is at its lowest yet, 29%.

However, even though Labour have slumped from 43% to 39%, the Conservatives have picked up only one point, to settle on 31%.

The situation is even worse for Iain Duncan Smith - with a personal rating of minus 23 points.

Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, emerges as the only popular party leader, with a personal rating of plus 21.

The poll found 41% say the weapons inspectors should be give only a few more weeks, but a further 49% say they should be given "months or longer".

If the US fails to get full UN support, Britons will not be satisfied with a Washington argument that claims the support of Britain, Spain and Australia as a mandate for war. The poll shows that 58% would disapprove of this course of action, with only 31% saying it would be sufficient.


  • 0

#2 Guest_piehunt_*

Guest_piehunt_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 February 2003 - 08:50 PM

Is it possible to get a minus % ?? Guess so.
  • 0

#3 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 17 February 2003 - 09:07 PM

Perhaps it just means that IDS's personal rating has gone down by 23%. It's not actually -23%. That's my thinking anyway. :confused:
  • 0

#4 uglybastard

uglybastard

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 17 February 2003 - 09:13 PM

Yep, a short, successful war is the only way we can save Blair/Bush.

If the Iraqi people are out in the streets throwing flowers at coalition troops as they march into Bagdad.

If all of Saddam's attrocities are revealed on TV.

The poll numbers will shoot back up.

I guess you know that this means the war is a done thing, right?
  • 0

#5 xexon

xexon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5013 posts

Posted 17 February 2003 - 09:26 PM

My question is... do we want to save these two leaders ?

Blair seems like a decent man to me. Bush on the other hand is arrogant. He also has selective hearing loss. He certainly can't hear the citizens of this country right now.

Bush has done damage to his reputation, not to say what he did to that of the US. I think Americans will repay him for this come election day.

My concern is if all goes well in Iraq with the war, who's next ?
North Korea ? South America is growing unstable, AND, they have lots of oil. The future is pregnant with bad possibilities.

x
  • 0

#6 Guest_piehunt_*

Guest_piehunt_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 February 2003 - 10:20 PM

xexon,
Well i think they are both beyond saving. The situation may be out of there control now.
They have gone this far, to turn back now would be political suicide for them both.
  • 0

#7 Source

Source

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9046 posts

Posted 17 February 2003 - 11:03 PM

he's offered up his destiny to forces outside of his control, he'd better hope bush makes no mistakes.

(ha!)

he's been agin the population in the uk for too long and in pretty shabby ways too. he'll be voted out asap unless he has a cunning plan up his sleeve to reveal himself as our true lord and saviour. given his lamentable ability to back up much of his heartfelt sincerity and honesty i won't be betting on any proof though.

just another nutjob with a fender stratocaster who thinks he's jesus then.
  • 0

#8 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 17 February 2003 - 11:53 PM

I poop on blairs head
  • 0

#9 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 17 February 2003 - 11:54 PM

fake sergio1, we all dream of doing that. :)
  • 0

#10 wali

wali

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 7667 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 12:04 AM

first decent thing fake sergio has said
  • 0

#11 Gandu

Gandu

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 18 February 2003 - 12:09 AM

Are these not the same people who prevent Iraqi's from getting clean drinking water after they were purposely destroyed in 91 violating the geneva conventions? And they are out to liberate the people they wanted to make suffer for a decade?



Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death. Of the eighteen contracts, all but one hold was placed by the U.S. government. The contracts are for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps, water tankers, and other equipment.

The U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country's water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway.

The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.

The first one in this batch is called "Disease Information," and is also dated January 22, 1991. At the top, it says, "Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad." The analysis is blunt: "Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems."

The second DIA document, "Disease Outbreaks in Iraq," is dated February 21, 1990, but the year is clearly a typo and should be 1991.

All the DIA documents mentioned in this article were found at the Department of Defense's Gulflink site.



http://www.progressi...e/nagy0901.html
  • 0

#12 gonzo

gonzo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14844 posts

Posted 18 August 2005 - 09:39 PM

Originally posted by uglybastard
Yep, a short, successful war is the only way we can save Blair/Bush.

If the Iraqi people are out in the streets throwing flowers at coalition troops as they march into Bagdad.

If all of Saddam's attrocities are revealed on TV.

The poll numbers will shoot back up.

I guess you know that this means the war is a done thing, right?



flashback time to pre war iraq :wonder:

being wrong is what is so right about Bush supporters
  • 0

#13 Rickk

Rickk

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 17843 posts

Posted 18 August 2005 - 10:44 PM

Kind of funny how all these supposedly unpopular war presidents keep getting re-elected eh?

Howard, Blair, Bush....


If they were anymore 'unpopular' they'd each be sworn in for life.
  • 0

#14 Watchdog

Watchdog

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1548 posts

Posted 19 August 2005 - 03:21 AM

Originally posted by Rickk
Kind of funny how all these supposedly unpopular war presidents keep getting re-elected eh?

Howard, Blair, Bush....


If they were anymore 'unpopular' they'd each be sworn in for life.



The lib-dems are not going to form a govt in the UK, and the conservatives were not really all that less pro-war than Blair. I think immigration was a much bigger issue in Australia than Iraq. Here in the US we had the choice between two pro-war candidates. Conversely where a clear anti-war platform was put forth to the voters as in Spain, we had the Anzar government thrown out of office.
  • 0

#15 Shilka

Shilka

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20852 posts

Posted 19 August 2005 - 04:30 AM

Originally posted by Rickk
Kind of funny how all these supposedly unpopular war presidents keep getting re-elected eh?

Howard, Blair, Bush....


If they were anymore 'unpopular' they'd each be sworn in for life.



The fact is that the average voter doesn't really give a damn about foreign policy issues, it's domestic issues which bring them out.

It's different on forums such as this where there is a large concentration of people interested in International politics.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru