|
Blair bush lapdog { November 14 2002 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,839838,00.htmlhttp://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,839838,00.html
50% see Blair as Bush's lapdog
Talk about it: Is Blair a lapdog?
Staff and agencies
Thursday November 14, 2002
Almost half of the British public see Tony Blair as George Bush's "lapdog", according to a poll published today.
Only 13% of the public back military action against Iraq, with 9% definitely opposed, but three quarters (76%) are still open to persuasion.
Yet the US president is viewed as a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein by one in three of those still undecided about the merits of military action.
The poll, for a Channel 4 News special at 7pm tonight, suggests that the prime minister's biggest obstacle to winning over public opinion in favour of military action is his ally President Bush.
When given a straight choice between the two leaders, some 32% of the undecided said Mr Bush posed the greatest threat to world peace, compared with 49% who named President Saddam.
Questioned on the relationship between the British and US leaders, 46% of those polled described Mr Blair as Mr Bush's lapdog, with an even worse rating for the prime minister amongst the under 30s.
Meanwhile, 35% saw Mr Blair as a restraining influence on Mr Bush, with 13% maintaining neither influenced the other. The US president also fared poorly when the public was asked to rate between 0 and 10 how much they trusted the two leaders.
Some 32% had no trust whatsoever in the US president. Trust in Mr Blair was much more evenly spread.
The British public also had suspicions about Mr Bush's motives for targeting President Saddam.
While 27% thought it was because President Saddam was a uniquely dangerous threat to world peace, some 59% said it was because he was a threat to US control and influence in the Middle East.
Only 28% of the undecided said Mr Blair's motivation for military action was moral, while 52% said it was political.
Commenting on the statement, "There are far more urgent problems than Iraq. Britain should try to solve them, not plan to fight Saddam Hussein," some 64% either agreed or agreed strongly.
If there were British casualties in a war with Iraq, some 21% would blame the prime minister, 18% Mr Bush, 27% President Saddam, and 32% nobody, saying casualties were inevitable.
When the undecided were asked what they regarded as the worst consequence of not taking action against President Saddam, 49% said that the Iraqi people would suffer, 21% worried that Iraq would obtain nuclear weapons, and 19% were concerned about Iraqi-sponsored terrorism.
But the poll also highlighted people's biggest fears over taking military action.
Some 93% said it would increase the risk of terrorist reprisals, 82% feared a severe economic cost, and 39% thought there could be a long drawn-out war with no clear winner.
Some 53% of women believed this final scenario was the most likely outcome.
The research was carried out by US pollster Dr Frank Luntz, a senior Republican strategist who recently helped guide the party to unprecedented success in the mid-term elections. Two polls were conducted by internet polling organisation YouGov. Some 3,213 people were polled between October 29 and November 8. The second survey involved a split sample of 2,256 people between November 8 and 11.
|
|
