Only 20% of Brit voters believes their govt. tells the truth about terror

[mogster]

Only 1% believes the Afganistan and Iraqi war has reduced the terror threat against Britons...

Boooh!

When it comes to potential terrorist threats against this country, do you think that the government........
Exaggerates the threat 21%
Tells the truth about the threat 20%
Tells less than it knows about the threat 51%
Don't know 9%

Generally speaking, do you think that government policies such as backing for action in Iraq and Afghanistan have made this country more of a target for terrorists, less of a target, or have they made no difference one way or the other?
More of a target 72%
Less of a target 1%
No difference 22%
Don't know 5%

And the result:
General Election Voting Intention Published Figures
Labour 31%
Conservative 40%
Liberal Democrat 22%
Other 8%
CONSERVATIVE LEAD 9%

These numbers are from a recent poll made for the Guardian:
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2006/Guardian%20-%20August/guardian-august-2006-version1.asp

The former lies are making an impact on the electorate also in Britain, I suppose.

[magellan]

1. The Brits must be genetically pre-dispositioned by now

...to distrust the government. I'm sure they passed that excellent gene on to the American colonies...but I think it's been turned off by the over-consumption of fatty foods and pap reality tv.

This was the best response:

Generally speaking, do you think that government policies such as backing for action in Iraq and Afghanistan have made this country more of a target for terrorists, less of a target, or have they made no difference one way or the other?
More of a target 72%
Less of a target 1%
No difference 22%
Don't know 5%

You can't fool the Brits. They've had plenty of experience with terrorism, they know what works and what doesn't.

Only one question. Do they really believe they'd be better off under the Tories as that last result implies?? Terrorism and Thatcherites (there are a few still hanging around in the party) seem like a BAAAAAAD combination to me.

[mogster]

6. The question is wether there's any difference

Between New Labour and the Conservatives.

Look at this political compass:



http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/extremeright

The Brits have had plenty of experience with terrorism, but also plenty of screw ups, implicating cover up and lies by the police as well as the secret services.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maguire_Seven
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six

[magellan]

7. Separated by a ciggy paper

It's no secret New Labour lost itself by cozying up to the conservatives. The Dems are making the same mistake. There's no substantive difference between any of them when you come right down to it.

And yes, the UK government has had its screw-ups...but it's the people who were polled, and they at least appear to have taken past experience on board even if their leaders haven't.

[mogster]

8. I think it would be: made the same mistake

The Dems are more centrist today than they were back in the 90's. Besides, this happened all over the world. In Norway, the same happened as in the US and UK; the Labour party (and the whole political spectrum) went to the right too - fiscally.

But there's a difference; we got a new party growing up during the 80's called the Progress party. During that decade, they were ultra liberalist both fiscally and morally, and also ultra opportunist. No ideology. Originating from a mix of former nazi's and tax resisting groups, it grew during the 80's to be a yuppie-party, all set for privatization and free markets. It resembled the Brit Thatcherites, but went even further; free drugs and less money for the church was central issues for their youth movement, and also the freedom of sexual orientation. Very gay friendly.
The old bunch stayed in power, though, and in 1990 they turned to the fundies and a row of successful young yuppie second-leaders was removed to consolidate the power of this man, Carl Ivar Hagen. He was their leader from 1974 to 2005, and has always kept a tight grip on his party.


During the 90's they got more and more fundie and racist. Here's a revealing trend; their suggestions for cuts and adds in the church budget during the 90's (Norway has a state church):

1989: -13,5 mill.NOK
1990: -23 mill.NOK
1991: -23 mill.NOK
|
1999: + 1,6 mill.NOK
2000: +5 mill.NOK
2001: +50 mill.NOK

Since the election in 1997, they have had a fundie and racist group in the natnl. assembly, Stortinget. Their second in command was even convicted for violence against immigrants the same year. They always were hostile to immigration, but since 2001 they've really found a market. There is close kinship between the Prog. party and the Brit conservatives and also the parts of New Labour who identifies themselves with neo-Christianity and evangelism.
I guess what happened in the Progress party in Norway, happened in the Cons. party and also parts of New Labour in the UK, and in the Republican party in the US.

The Norw. Labour kept their shit together first and foremost because of a strong trend of women entering politics that reformed the party, and also the Norw. society. Much the same happened to the US Democrat party and the Libs, I guess. But with the fundie Senate and House, there's a limitation to what you can do.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. The trouble with the poll is the 51% who say it "tells less than it knows"

can be divided into 2 very different groups: those who think there are ongoing investigations into some suspected plots, but the government isn't publicising them - as it shouldn't, because they might turn out to be nothing, or they might lead to something bigger; or those who think we are in terrible danger, and the government is playing down the threat to keep us calm. I think that makes that question pretty useless, if we don't know which category that 51% fall into.

[mogster]

5. I agree

That's some interesting points. It would depend on wether the electorate trust the Brit govt. in general, I suppose.

Maybe this poll from July can help differentiate:

From what you have seen or heard, do you think the war against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein was justified or unjustified
Justified 36%
Unjustified 51%
Don't know 14%

Do you think the presence of British forces in Iraq is helping to improve the situation there, making it worse or is there no difference one way or the other?
Improve situation 19%
No difference 35%
Make it worse 36%
Don't know 10%

Do you think the presence of British forces in Afghanistan is helping to improve the situation there, making it worse or is there no difference one way or the other?
Improve situation 23%
No difference 34%
Make it worse 29%
Don't know 14%

Some people say that the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has made Britain too close to the United States while others think he has got the relationship about right. Do you think that Britain is....
Too close to the USA 63%
About right 30%
Not close enough to the USA 3%
Don't know 4%

General Election Voting Intention Published Figures
Labour 35%
Conservative 39%
Liberal Democrat 17%
Other 9%
CONSERVATIVE LEAD 4%

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2006/Guardian%20-%20July/guardian-july-2006.asp

The conservative lead is up 5% in one month, from 4% to 9%. It should send a message to the Labour politicians that the current course isn't leading in the right direction.

[Greeby]

3. We still have voters in this country?

Who knew? :eyes:

[Vidar]

4. Smarter than my country with more honest polls.

[WilliamPitt]

9. The Brits have been dealing with lying governments

since the Magna Carta. They're not fools.

[mogster]

10. Yes, that's true

But today you have the media diversity and a much more complex world to digest. The Brits too were tricked into the Iraqi war, despite very high quality media.