Notable polling from Yougov today on military action in Syria. A few points to note:
1. Every single subset is net opposed to every military option presented, usually by clear majorities. The only one that comes close is Con voters re missile strikes, which is a marginal net -1.
2. The public - very consistently across all groups and parties - blame Assad and/or his allies for the chemical attack. Those giving a different explanation don't number more than in the low teens in any group.
3. Con voters are even more opposed to British troops getting involved than supporters of the other two parties.
4. Labour voters are slightly more in favour of British troops getting involved to enact regime change than in launching missile strikes.
Points to take from this.
1. A lot of the public are sceptical and woefully underinformed about what is possible or what the costs of certain options would be.
2. The government, if it wants public backing, needs to either (a) do a big educational job, or (b) get in and out quickly and successfully.
3. Labour has a serious opportunity to play on public ambivalence but only if it's clear in blaming Assad and making the case as to why action shouldn't happen *despite* Assad's culpability.
4. May is taking a huge gamble in hiding in the bunker. Again.
Of course the public is opposed to military action. No one has sought to explain to them what the aims of such action should be or how they could be achieved through military action. See your point 4.
Notable polling from Yougov today on military action in Syria. A few points to note:
1. Every single subset is net opposed to every military option presented, usually by clear majorities. The only one that comes close is Con voters re missile strikes, which is a marginal net -1.
2. The public - very consistently across all groups and parties - blame Assad and/or his allies for the chemical attack. Those giving a different explanation don't number more than in the low teens in any group.
3. Con voters are even more opposed to British troops getting involved than supporters of the other two parties.
4. Labour voters are slightly more in favour of British troops getting involved to enact regime change than in launching missile strikes.
Points to take from this.
1. A lot of the public are sceptical and woefully underinformed about what is possible or what the costs of certain options would be.
2. The government, if it wants public backing, needs to either (a) do a big educational job, or (b) get in and out quickly and successfully.
3. Labour has a serious opportunity to play on public ambivalence but only if it's clear in blaming Assad and making the case as to why action shouldn't happen *despite* Assad's culpability.
4. May is taking a huge gamble in hiding in the bunker. Again.
All that can change very quickly once the case for action starts being made. This poll is far too early IMO.
Notable polling from Yougov today on military action in Syria. A few points to note:
1. Every single subset is net opposed to every military option presented, usually by clear majorities. The only one that comes close is Con voters re missile strikes, which is a marginal net -1.
2. The public - very consistently across all groups and parties - blame Assad and/or his allies for the chemical attack. Those giving a different explanation don't number more than in the low teens in any group.
3. Con voters are even more opposed to British troops getting involved than supporters of the other two parties.
4. Labour voters are slightly more in favour of British troops getting involved to enact regime change than in launching missile strikes.
Points to take from this.
1. A lot of the public are sceptical and woefully underinformed about what is possible or what the costs of certain options would be.
2. The government, if it wants public backing, needs to either (a) do a big educational job, or (b) get in and out quickly and successfully.
3. Labour has a serious opportunity to play on public ambivalence but only if it's clear in blaming Assad and making the case as to why action shouldn't happen *despite* Assad's culpability.
4. May is taking a huge gamble in hiding in the bunker. Again.
All that can change very quickly once the case for action starts being made. This poll is far too early IMO.
I'm one of those who was prepared to make an exception for the Islamic State but Assad is basically another Saddam figure, and we all know how that ended up.
Notable polling from Yougov today on military action in Syria. A few points to note:
1. Every single subset is net opposed to every military option presented, usually by clear majorities. The only one that comes close is Con voters re missile strikes, which is a marginal net -1.
2. The public - very consistently across all groups and parties - blame Assad and/or his allies for the chemical attack. Those giving a different explanation don't number more than in the low teens in any group.
3. Con voters are even more opposed to British troops getting involved than supporters of the other two parties.
4. Labour voters are slightly more in favour of British troops getting involved to enact regime change than in launching missile strikes.
Points to take from this.
1. A lot of the public are sceptical and woefully underinformed about what is possible or what the costs of certain options would be.
2. The government, if it wants public backing, needs to either (a) do a big educational job, or (b) get in and out quickly and successfully.
3. Labour has a serious opportunity to play on public ambivalence but only if it's clear in blaming Assad and making the case as to why action shouldn't happen *despite* Assad's culpability.
4. May is taking a huge gamble in hiding in the bunker. Again.
All that can change very quickly once the case for action starts being made. This poll is far too early IMO.
Agreed - the latest news from Macron is uncompromising and as the case is made opinions could well change
Meh, the Tories will be under a 3 line whip to support too. I think strikes would pass parliament, personally I'd vote against if it was a free choice but I wouldn't rebel whichever way I was told to vote.
Personally I don't think votes for military action should be under a 3 line whip. I don't want people voting for military action even if they think it's a bad idea, just to further their career.
Meh, the Tories will be under a 3 line whip to support too. I think strikes would pass parliament, personally I'd vote against if it was a free choice but I wouldn't rebel whichever way I was told to vote.
Personally I don't think votes for military action should be under a 3 line whip. I don't want people voting for military action even if they think it's a bad idea, just to further their career.
Votes of war and peace are normally 3 line whipped by the Gov't though..., I think ?
Meh, the Tories will be under a 3 line whip to support too. I think strikes would pass parliament, personally I'd vote against if it was a free choice but I wouldn't rebel whichever way I was told to vote.
Personally I don't think votes for military action should be under a 3 line whip. I don't want people voting for military action even if they think it's a bad idea, just to further their career.
Votes of war and peace are normally 3 line whipped by the Gov't though..., I think ?
@steve_hawkes: STAND DOWN PEOPLE! Cut to images of submarines conducting three-point turns in the Med. twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984374422587965440
Has Putin been DM'ing Trump on twitter with pictures he has of his last stay in a Moscow hotel?
Jezza's only approved newspaper, the Morning Star says this...
“Today, the pretext for escalating Britain’s military involvement in Syria is that the Assad regime — the internationally recognised, legitimate and elected government in Damascus — is guilty of a poison gas attack on the citizens of Douma. Film of the aftermath, broadcast across the world in recent days, shows a troupe of very camera-conscious young men washing down the victims, all of whom are children, most of them looking more bewildered than wounded or incapacitated, and without a distressed parent or relative in sight.”
Jezza's only approved newspaper, the Morning Star says this...
“Today, the pretext for escalating Britain’s military involvement in Syria is that the Assad regime — the internationally recognised, legitimate and elected government in Damascus — is guilty of a poison gas attack on the citizens of Douma. Film of the aftermath, broadcast across the world in recent days, shows a troupe of very camera-conscious young men washing down the victims, all of whom are children, most of them looking more bewildered than wounded or incapacitated, and without a distressed parent or relative in sight.”
The bloody Russians could be marching down The Mall and Corbyn would still be wringing his hands. I honestly can't imagine any scenario where Corbyn would use military force.
Jezza's only approved newspaper, the Morning Star says this...
“Today, the pretext for escalating Britain’s military involvement in Syria is that the Assad regime — the internationally recognised, legitimate and elected government in Damascus — is guilty of a poison gas attack on the citizens of Douma. Film of the aftermath, broadcast across the world in recent days, shows a troupe of very camera-conscious young men washing down the victims, all of whom are children, most of them looking more bewildered than wounded or incapacitated, and without a distressed parent or relative in sight.”
That's bollocks, assuming the pictures I saw were genuine the children weren't looking bewildered, they were stone cold dead.
The bloody Russians could be marching down The Mall and Corbyn would still be wringing his hands. I honestly can't imagine any scenario where Corbyn would use military force.
A good take on knowing exactly what Corbyn will say in any given international situation:
Remember that the bad guys are the UK, USA and Israel, and work backwards from there.
The trouble is that Jeremy Corbyn is not simply making a case for non-intervention. He is, as over the Skripal affair, taking the Kremlin line, namely that this is all a very fishy business, that you can’t trust claims made by the West and that Russia should be involved in the final settlement. Just as Sinn Féin spokesmen, asked to condemn Republican murders, would trot out platitudes about wanting “all the killing in Ireland” to end, so Corbyn speaks in deliberate cliché: “I condemn all violence from wherever it’s come from”.
The bloody Russians could be marching down The Mall and Corbyn would still be wringing his hands. I honestly can't imagine any scenario where Corbyn would use military force.
If an opposing force threaten to invade, make all schools Grammar's, all other public services privatized, rejoined the EU including signing up to the Euro and install a permanent ruling administration run along capitalist principles?
Jezza's only approved newspaper, the Morning Star says this...
“Today, the pretext for escalating Britain’s military involvement in Syria is that the Assad regime — the internationally recognised, legitimate and elected government in Damascus — is guilty of a poison gas attack on the citizens of Douma. Film of the aftermath, broadcast across the world in recent days, shows a troupe of very camera-conscious young men washing down the victims, all of whom are children, most of them looking more bewildered than wounded or incapacitated, and without a distressed parent or relative in sight.”
That's bollocks, assuming the pictures I saw were genuine the children weren't looking bewildered, they were stone cold dead.
This is what we are dealing with, Corbynism is left wing Trumpism. All established media is fake news / hiding something, while all these start-ups push "genuine" fake news.
This is what we are dealing with, Corbynism is left wing Trumpism. All established media is fake news / hiding something, while all these start-ups push "genuine" fake news.
A point I've made many times myself.
And I'm not claiming any expertise but the children looked really dead to me, not acting.
Notable polling from Yougov today on military action in Syria. A few points to note:
1. Every single subset is net opposed to every military option presented, usually by clear majorities. The only one that comes close is Con voters re missile strikes, which is a marginal net -1.
2. The public - very consistently across all groups and parties - blame Assad and/or his allies for the chemical attack. Those giving a different explanation don't number more than in the low teens in any group.
3. Con voters are even more opposed to British troops getting involved than supporters of the other two parties.
4. Labour voters are slightly more in favour of British troops getting involved to enact regime change than in launching missile strikes.
Points to take from this.
1. A lot of the public are sceptical and woefully underinformed about what is possible or what the costs of certain options would be.
2. The government, if it wants public backing, needs to either (a) do a big educational job, or (b) get in and out quickly and successfully.
3. Labour has a serious opportunity to play on public ambivalence but only if it's clear in blaming Assad and making the case as to why action shouldn't happen *despite* Assad's culpability.
4. May is taking a huge gamble in hiding in the bunker. Again.
All that can change very quickly once the case for action starts being made. This poll is far too early IMO.
The purpose of a poll is to take a snapshot opinion. What people do with the data is their business. There is no such thing as 'too early' to take a poll. There is such a thing as basing analysis on out-of-date data.
What concerns me is that even after a chemical weapon is used on our own shores by a foreign power, people still seem to think that the chemical weapons treaties are not worth upholding.
Mr. Jessop, indeed. Our aim should solely to be to make the price of using chemical weapons too high. So, blow up something expensive and/or hard to replace which Assad makes use of. This shouldn't, and doesn't, need to be the start of prolonged engagement directly with the Syrian war. It should be a punitive strike so that any gains achieved by use of chemical weapons are outweighed by the cost of their use.
Chemical weapons use becoming commonplace would be horrific. There are also biological and nuclear weapons which could end up the same way (by 'nuclear' I mean that in a broad sense, to include dirty bombs as well as the traditional image of an ICBM followed by a mushroom cloud).
What concerns me is that even after a chemical weapon is used on our own shores by a foreign power, people still seem to think that the chemical weapons treaties are not worth upholding.
I think it is that people do not want to get involved in a messy civil proxy war in the middle East.There does not to be any good guys to support .If it is a hard choice between Assad and ISis many think Putin is correct in not letting Syria become a failed Isis state .
Jezza's only approved newspaper, the Morning Star says this...
“Today, the pretext for escalating Britain’s military involvement in Syria is that the Assad regime — the internationally recognised, legitimate and elected government in Damascus — is guilty of a poison gas attack on the citizens of Douma. Film of the aftermath, broadcast across the world in recent days, shows a troupe of very camera-conscious young men washing down the victims, all of whom are children, most of them looking more bewildered than wounded or incapacitated, and without a distressed parent or relative in sight.”
Even by the remarkably low standards of the Morning Star, the bits I have bolded are pretty shocking lies. Do they think anyone with an IQ of more than 4 believes them?
It's also quite striking that as good Communists they are supporting the corrupt rich rather than the downtrodden poor...
Neil cannot take criticism, one of the most overated pompous hosepipes in the BBC propaganda unit. Thinks as long as he thinks it is OK then it must be right.
Notable polling from Yougov today on military action in Syria. A few points to note:
1. Every single subset is net opposed to every military option presented, usually by clear majorities. The only one that comes close is Con voters re missile strikes, which is a marginal net -1.
2. The public - very consistently across all groups and parties - blame Assad and/or his allies for the chemical attack. Those giving a different explanation don't number more than in the low teens in any group.
3. Con voters are even more opposed to British troops getting involved than supporters of the other two parties.
4. Labour voters are slightly more in favour of British troops getting involved to enact regime change than in launching missile strikes.
Points to take from this.
1. A lot of the public are sceptical and woefully underinformed about what is possible or what the costs of certain options would be.
2. The government, if it wants public backing, needs to either (a) do a big educational job, or (b) get in and out quickly and successfully.
3. Labour has a serious opportunity to play on public ambivalence but only if it's clear in blaming Assad and making the case as to why action shouldn't happen *despite* Assad's culpability.
4. May is taking a huge gamble in hiding in the bunker. Again.
Of course the public is opposed to military action. No one has sought to explain to them what the aims of such action should be or how they could be achieved through military action. See your point 4.
Jezza's only approved newspaper, the Morning Star says this...
“Today, the pretext for escalating Britain’s military involvement in Syria is that the Assad regime — the internationally recognised, legitimate and elected government in Damascus — is guilty of a poison gas attack on the citizens of Douma. Film of the aftermath, broadcast across the world in recent days, shows a troupe of very camera-conscious young men washing down the victims, all of whom are children, most of them looking more bewildered than wounded or incapacitated, and without a distressed parent or relative in sight.”
Even by the remarkably low standards of the Morning Star, the bits I have bolded are pretty shocking lies. Do they think anyone with an IQ of more than 4 believes them?
It's also quite striking that as good Communists they are supporting the corrupt rich rather than the downtrodden poor...
Scarily people are believing all this misinformation, see the doubts over nerve agent attack, and bizarrely pushing the same agenda as the right wing loons at places like InfoWars.
Notable polling from Yougov today on military action in Syria. A few points to note:
1. Every single subset is net opposed to every military option presented, usually by clear majorities. The only one that comes close is Con voters re missile strikes, which is a marginal net -1.
2. The public - very consistently across all groups and parties - blame Assad and/or his allies for the chemical attack. Those giving a different explanation don't number more than in the low teens in any group.
3. Con voters are even more opposed to British troops getting involved than supporters of the other two parties.
4. Labour voters are slightly more in favour of British troops getting involved to enact regime change than in launching missile strikes.
Points to take from this.
1. A lot of the public are sceptical and woefully underinformed about what is possible or what the costs of certain options would be.
2. The government, if it wants public backing, needs to either (a) do a big educational job, or (b) get in and out quickly and successfully.
3. Labour has a serious opportunity to play on public ambivalence but only if it's clear in blaming Assad and making the case as to why action shouldn't happen *despite* Assad's culpability.
4. May is taking a huge gamble in hiding in the bunker. Again.
Of course the public is opposed to military action. No one has sought to explain to them what the aims of such action should be or how they could be achieved through military action. See your point 4.
Or been shown any proof of who did it.
Well, at least we can sure it wasn't the Ayrshire SNP. No turnips in sight.
Jezza's only approved newspaper, the Morning Star says this...
“Today, the pretext for escalating Britain’s military involvement in Syria is that the Assad regime — the internationally recognised, legitimate and elected government in Damascus — is guilty of a poison gas attack on the citizens of Douma. Film of the aftermath, broadcast across the world in recent days, shows a troupe of very camera-conscious young men washing down the victims, all of whom are children, most of them looking more bewildered than wounded or incapacitated, and without a distressed parent or relative in sight.”
Even by the remarkably low standards of the Morning Star, the bits I have bolded are pretty shocking lies. Do they think anyone with an IQ of more than 4 believes them?
It's also quite striking that as good Communists they are supporting the corrupt rich rather than the downtrodden poor...
It's the Morning Star. They'd be happy with this level of socialist election monitoring -
Election observers[edit] There were no independent election monitors for the election,[23] but an international delegation did observe the election. It was reported to have included representatives from more than 30 countries including Brazil,[24] India,[49] Iran,[23][24] Russia,[23][24] Uganda,[24] the US,[50] and Venezuela.[24] Other delegates expected to join were from China, South Africa, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador and Canada.[49] Among the delegates were Iran's Alaeddin Boroujerdi,[23] Alexey Alexandrov of Russia's ruling United Russia,[23] William Fariñas of Venezuela's ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela,[51] Benna Namugwanya Bugembe of Uganda's ruling National Resistance Movement[24] Socorro Gomes of the Communist World Peace Council,[51] blogger Jane Stillwater,[50] Judy Bello and Scott Williams of the Workers World Party,[50] Paul Larudee[50] Joe Iosbaker of Freedom Road Socialist Organization/FightBack![50] and Indian and US anti-Zionist activists Feroze Mithiborwala.[49] and Paul Larudee.[50]
Jezza's only approved newspaper, the Morning Star says this...
“Today, the pretext for escalating Britain’s military involvement in Syria is that the Assad regime — the internationally recognised, legitimate and elected government in Damascus — is guilty of a poison gas attack on the citizens of Douma. Film of the aftermath, broadcast across the world in recent days, shows a troupe of very camera-conscious young men washing down the victims, all of whom are children, most of them looking more bewildered than wounded or incapacitated, and without a distressed parent or relative in sight.”
That's bollocks, assuming the pictures I saw were genuine the children weren't looking bewildered, they were stone cold dead.
Jezza's only approved newspaper, the Morning Star says this...
“Today, the pretext for escalating Britain’s military involvement in Syria is that the Assad regime — the internationally recognised, legitimate and elected government in Damascus — is guilty of a poison gas attack on the citizens of Douma. Film of the aftermath, broadcast across the world in recent days, shows a troupe of very camera-conscious young men washing down the victims, all of whom are children, most of them looking more bewildered than wounded or incapacitated, and without a distressed parent or relative in sight.”
Even by the remarkably low standards of the Morning Star, the bits I have bolded are pretty shocking lies. Do they think anyone with an IQ of more than 4 believes them?
It's also quite striking that as good Communists they are supporting the corrupt rich rather than the downtrodden poor...
Scarily people are believing all this misinformation, see the doubts over nerve agent attack, and bizarrely pushing the same agenda as the right wing loons at places like InfoWars.
But surely - even if people believe the second bit - nobody with access to the internet would accept the first part? It's sheer lunacy to suggest the Ba'ath party is in any way democratic or indeed widely internationally recognised. Most states have broken off diplomatic relations.
Looks like Trump has been comprehensively outplayed by Putin.
Or Putin's got some real dirt on Don.
His real tax return showing he isn't in the billionaire club ;-)
Speaking of tax I found my entire life's NI record/state pension entitlement online this morning.
Really? Tell BBC R4 You & Yours or Private Eye.
Three company databases with some of my details on them have been hacked in the space of 4 years: Ebay, Linked-In (now owned by M'soft) and Wetherspoons. It's becoming the default.
HMRC is obstructive to those who wish to use a paper tax return. Yet the online security is now so OTT it takes much longer to do it online.
Are US tax returns done online or still on paper? If online, maybe some journalist/hacker in the public interest could find Trump's!!
Jezza's only approved newspaper, the Morning Star says this...
“Today, the pretext for escalating Britain’s military involvement in Syria is that the Assad regime — the internationally recognised, legitimate and elected government in Damascus — is guilty of a poison gas attack on the citizens of Douma. Film of the aftermath, broadcast across the world in recent days, shows a troupe of very camera-conscious young men washing down the victims, all of whom are children, most of them looking more bewildered than wounded or incapacitated, and without a distressed parent or relative in sight.”
Even by the remarkably low standards of the Morning Star, the bits I have bolded are pretty shocking lies. Do they think anyone with an IQ of more than 4 believes them?
It's also quite striking that as good Communists they are supporting the corrupt rich rather than the downtrodden poor...
Scarily people are believing all this misinformation, see the doubts over nerve agent attack, and bizarrely pushing the same agenda as the right wing loons at places like InfoWars.
But surely - even if people believe the second bit - nobody with access to the internet would accept the first part? It's sheer lunacy to suggest the Ba'ath party is in any way democratic or indeed widely internationally recognised. Most states have broken off diplomatic relations.
I just don't know anymore...see some posters on here who keep linking to these Fake News websites and it takes 10+ posts from others providing evidence from reputable sources showing that the original link isn't correct, before there is even a partial admittance that perhaps things might not be 100% on the up and up.
But she argues that lessons these days are so tightly packed there is little time for discussion, and the subject for personal development, and personal, social and health education, "has been squashed".
In practice staying in the SM after 1/1/21 could either by permanent agreement, or more likely by further extending transition. I suspect that the second is quite likely, not least because a Comprehensive FTA will be a few years away at that point.
Looks like Trump has been comprehensively outplayed by Putin.
Or Putin's got some real dirt on Don.
His real tax return showing he isn't in the billionaire club ;-)
Speaking of tax I found my entire life's NI record/state pension entitlement online this morning.
Really? Tell BBC R4 You & Yours or Private Eye.
Three company databases with some of my details on them have been hacked in the space of 4 years: Ebay, Linked-In (now owned by M'soft) and Wetherspoons. It's becoming the default.
HMRC is obstructive to those who wish to use a paper tax return. Yet the online security is now so OTT it takes much longer to do it online.
Are US tax returns done online or still on paper? If online, maybe some journalist/hacker in the public interest could find Trump's!!
It was on the Gov't website. I remembered I'd missed a few years back in the early 2000s due to a bit of travelling after Uni so wanted to check how many years I now need to work to get the "full" entitlement till retirement.
What concerns me is that even after a chemical weapon is used on our own shores by a foreign power, people still seem to think that the chemical weapons treaties are not worth upholding.
It is not a case of saying it is not worth upholding. It is a case of saying that we are utterly incapable of taking any action that would make any difference - unless of course you really do want to have US and UK pilots shooting down Russian aircraft - and even then it would almost certainly fail to make any difference. We can and will only make things worse, not better.
Those saying we should go to war to remove Assad are just as misguided as those who supported removing Saddam or Gaddafi. Except in this case they want us to go to war with Russia and Iran as well.
What concerns me is that even after a chemical weapon is used on our own shores by a foreign power, people still seem to think that the chemical weapons treaties are not worth upholding.
It is not a case of saying it is not worth upholding. It is a case of saying that we are utterly incapable of taking any action that would make any difference - unless of course you really do want to have US and UK pilots shooting down Russian aircraft - and even then it would almost certainly fail to make any difference. We can and will only make things worse, not better.
(Snip)
If we do not act when they are used, we are not upholding the treaties and they are worthless.
In practice staying in the SM after 1/1/21 could either by permanent agreement, or more likely by further extending transition. I suspect that the second is quite likely, not least because a Comprehensive FTA will be a few years away at that point.
The Govt, with a majority in the house, are committed to leaving both.
No PM who kept us in it, with concomitant free movement, will last till lunchtime. Graham Brady's postman would be working overtime.
Yet again, there is no route to SM membership. It isn't going to happen.
I know I tipped Raab, but now might be the time to start laying him.
Housing minister Dominic Raab today faced mounting pressure as the UK statistics watchdog demanded he publish evidence for a controversial claim blaming surging house prices on immigrants.
The UK Statistics Authority is calling for the model he used to claim property prices spiralled by 20 per cent over 25 years because of immigration to be made available to the public.
Ed Humpherson, head of the watchdog’s Office for Statistics Regulation, said: “Where analysis is quoted in public debate, the UK Statistics Authority believes it is essential that it be made equally available to all.
“We have been speaking to officials at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the minister’s statements on migration and housing.”
Mr Humpherson is preparing to write to officials at MHCLG today to request the analysis is released publicly.
Mr Raab has come under fire amid reports the claim relied on analysis from a quango which shut down eight years ago. Independent fact-checking organisation Full Fact said it had been unable to find any evidence in the public domain to support his comments, published in the Sunday Times.
All that can change very quickly once the case for action starts being made. This poll is far too early IMO.
The purpose of a poll is to take a snapshot opinion. What people do with the data is their business. There is no such thing as 'too early' to take a poll. There is such a thing as basing analysis on out-of-date data.
If the intention of the poll is to meaningfully measure public opinion and provide information that is useful to decision-makers, then yes I think you can take it too early.
As the yougov post notes - these things can shift very quickly. Support for air strikes fell by 12% last time when Corbyn opposed them.
Polling before the views of the political parties and leaders are known doesn't seem very meaningful to me.
Looks like Trump has been comprehensively outplayed by Putin.
Quite the opposite actually. Putin said if you send missiles we will shoot them down. Trump said good luck with that. Russia said there will be consequences. Trump said yes indeedy and have you seen what's happened to your currency recently? Russia said, well, if you are going to do this would you mind awfully if we got our people out of harm's way first. Trump said yes, but be quick. Now he says, well its going to happen but not necessarily when. So do the inbedded Russians stay out of harm's way effectively neutered or do they go back to war and take their chances?
Looks like Trump has been comprehensively outplayed by Putin.
Quite the opposite actually. Putin said if you send missiles we will shoot them down. Trump said good luck with that. Russia said there will be consequences. Trump said yes indeedy and have you seen what's happened to your currency recently? Russia said, well, if you are going to do this would you mind awfully if we got our people out of harm's way first. Trump said yes, but be quick. Now he says, well its going to happen but not necessarily when. So do the inbedded Russians stay out of harm's way effectively neutered or do they go back to war and take their chances?
Putin/Assad have just taken control of Douma. The last thing they want is some US missiles being lobbed their way. Looks like we might de-escalate to no Med US action now. Which is precisely what Putin/Assad wants..
What concerns me is that even after a chemical weapon is used on our own shores by a foreign power, people still seem to think that the chemical weapons treaties are not worth upholding.
It is not a case of saying it is not worth upholding. It is a case of saying that we are utterly incapable of taking any action that would make any difference - unless of course you really do want to have US and UK pilots shooting down Russian aircraft - and even then it would almost certainly fail to make any difference. We can and will only make things worse, not better.
(Snip)
If we do not act when they are used, we are not upholding the treaties and they are worthless.
The Treaties have been worthless for decades. At least since we in the West allowed our proxy in the Middle East to use them against his neighbours and his own people.
What concerns me is that even after a chemical weapon is used on our own shores by a foreign power, people still seem to think that the chemical weapons treaties are not worth upholding.
It is not a case of saying it is not worth upholding. It is a case of saying that we are utterly incapable of taking any action that would make any difference - unless of course you really do want to have US and UK pilots shooting down Russian aircraft - and even then it would almost certainly fail to make any difference. We can and will only make things worse, not better.
(Snip)
If we do not act when they are used, we are not upholding the treaties and they are worthless.
The Treaties have been worthless for decades. At least since we in the West allowed our proxy in the Middle East to use them against his neighbours and his own people.
Whilst I agree about the way we turned a blind eye to Saddam (a point I have made many times in the past), the treaties are *not* currently worthless. But they need upholding, and the message needs to be sent that you do not use these weapons.
We have precious few weapons treaties. We shouldn't just shrug our shoulders and give in on the ones we have, and which have been generally very successful.
Notable polling from Yougov today on military action in Syria. A few points to note:
1. Every single subset is net opposed to every military option presented, usually by clear majorities. The only one that comes close is Con voters re missile strikes, which is a marginal net -1.
2. The public - very consistently across all groups and parties - blame Assad and/or his allies for the chemical attack. Those giving a different explanation don't number more than in the low teens in any group.
3. Con voters are even more opposed to British troops getting involved than supporters of the other two parties.
4. Labour voters are slightly more in favour of British troops getting involved to enact regime change than in launching missile strikes.
Points to take from this.
1. A lot of the public are sceptical and woefully underinformed about what is possible or what the costs of certain options would be.
2. The government, if it wants public backing, needs to either (a) do a big educational job, or (b) get in and out quickly and successfully.
3. Labour has a serious opportunity to play on public ambivalence but only if it's clear in blaming Assad and making the case as to why action shouldn't happen *despite* Assad's culpability.
4. May is taking a huge gamble in hiding in the bunker. Again.
Of course the public is opposed to military action. No one has sought to explain to them what the aims of such action should be or how they could be achieved through military action. See your point 4.
Or been shown any proof of who did it.
Well, at least we can sure it wasn't the Ayrshire SNP. No turnips in sight.
ydoethur, Ayrshire is full of them. Novichok would be a soft drink here.
Comments
This poll is far too early IMO.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43731668
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/984083779953229826
I don't want people voting for military action even if they think it's a bad idea, just to further their career.
And I think it's bonkers.
https://twitter.com/SkyFootball/status/984332822415585280
“Today, the pretext for escalating Britain’s military involvement in Syria is that the Assad regime — the internationally recognised, legitimate and elected government in Damascus — is guilty of a poison gas attack on the citizens of Douma. Film of the aftermath, broadcast across the world in recent days, shows a troupe of very camera-conscious young men washing down the victims, all of whom are children, most of them looking more bewildered than wounded or incapacitated, and without a distressed parent or relative in sight.”
What a shower....
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2018/04/daniel-hannan-corbyns-first-instinct-in-a-national-crisis-is-to-treat-it-as-a-way-to-attack-the-tories-much-to-putins-satisfaction.html
Remember that the bad guys are the UK, USA and Israel, and work backwards from there.
The trouble is that Jeremy Corbyn is not simply making a case for non-intervention. He is, as over the Skripal affair, taking the Kremlin line, namely that this is all a very fishy business, that you can’t trust claims made by the West and that Russia should be involved in the final settlement. Just as Sinn Féin spokesmen, asked to condemn Republican murders, would trot out platitudes about wanting “all the killing in Ireland” to end, so Corbyn speaks in deliberate cliché: “I condemn all violence from wherever it’s come from”.
The European Union’s chief negotiator said if the UK changed its “red lines” during the post-Brexit transition period then the EU would follow suit.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/britain-can-change-its-mind-on-single-market-until-end-of-2020-michel-barnier-says-a3811891.html
And I'm not claiming any expertise but the children looked really dead to me, not acting.
Chemical weapons use becoming commonplace would be horrific. There are also biological and nuclear weapons which could end up the same way (by 'nuclear' I mean that in a broad sense, to include dirty bombs as well as the traditional image of an ICBM followed by a mushroom cloud).
Winston ChurchillDick Briscoe moment?It's also quite striking that as good Communists they are supporting the corrupt rich rather than the downtrodden poor...
Have a look
(Did you actually read the link?)
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/984385683186909184
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/984385684709527553
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/984383129191436288
Three company databases with some of my details on them have been hacked in the space of 4 years: Ebay, Linked-In (now owned by M'soft) and Wetherspoons. It's becoming the default.
HMRC is obstructive to those who wish to use a paper tax return. Yet the online security is now so OTT it takes much longer to do it online.
Are US tax returns done online or still on paper? If online, maybe some journalist/hacker in the public interest could find Trump's!!
'My pupils all know someone who's been stabbed'
But she argues that lessons these days are so tightly packed there is little time for discussion, and the subject for personal development, and personal, social and health education, "has been squashed".
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-43701660
Those saying we should go to war to remove Assad are just as misguided as those who supported removing Saddam or Gaddafi. Except in this case they want us to go to war with Russia and Iran as well.
No PM who kept us in it, with concomitant free movement, will last till lunchtime. Graham Brady's postman would be working overtime.
Yet again, there is no route to SM membership. It isn't going to happen.
Housing minister Dominic Raab today faced mounting pressure as the UK statistics watchdog demanded he publish evidence for a controversial claim blaming surging house prices on immigrants.
The UK Statistics Authority is calling for the model he used to claim property prices spiralled by 20 per cent over 25 years because of immigration to be made available to the public.
Ed Humpherson, head of the watchdog’s Office for Statistics Regulation, said: “Where analysis is quoted in public debate, the UK Statistics Authority believes it is essential that it be made equally available to all.
“We have been speaking to officials at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the minister’s statements on migration and housing.”
Mr Humpherson is preparing to write to officials at MHCLG today to request the analysis is released publicly.
Mr Raab has come under fire amid reports the claim relied on analysis from a quango which shut down eight years ago. Independent fact-checking organisation Full Fact said it had been unable to find any evidence in the public domain to support his comments, published in the Sunday Times.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/dominic-raab-urged-to-make-immigration-house-price-data-public-a3812346.html
As the yougov post notes - these things can shift very quickly. Support for air strikes fell by 12% last time when Corbyn opposed them.
Polling before the views of the political parties and leaders are known doesn't seem very meaningful to me.
Labour really is cutting ties with the working class
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/984392721011036160
We have precious few weapons treaties. We shouldn't just shrug our shoulders and give in on the ones we have, and which have been generally very successful.