The full tables for the YouGov/Sunday Times poll are now up here. Here are some of the highlights.

The poll asked about Libya, but as it was conducted between Thursday afternoon and Friday afternoon the questions were rather overtaken by events. There are a couple of early straws in the wind though. Asked whether David Cameron has responded well or badly to the situation in Libya, 37% thought he had done badly, 44% well – a net score of minus 7 compared to minus 16 a fortnight ago when the same question was asked.

Most of this shift appears to have happened between Thursday and Friday as news of the UN resolution emerged – amongst people who filled in the survey overnight on Thursday approval of Cameron’s handling of Libya was still minus 13, amongst people who filled it in from Friday morning onwards approval of Cameron’s handling rose to minus 3. Of course, the whole of the survey was conducted prior to the start of actual military operations on Saturday – we won’t know the effect of that on public opinion until tomorrow.

In this poll support for a no-fly zone stood at 69%, with 14% opposed. Of course, theoretical support for a “no-fly” zone won’t necessarily translate into support for the present air strikes on Libya – we shall find out next week.

Secondly there were a group of questions on the Alternative Vote. Voting intention in the referendum currently stands at YES 33%, NO 32%, Don’t know 27%, won’t vote 7%. For the first time in a YouGov referendum poll, there were also figures weighted by likelihood to vote, though at this stage they made very little difference to the overall position – weighted by likelihood to vote the numbers were YES 39%, NO 37%, Don’t know 23%.

41% of people said they thought the present system was fair, compared to 30% who think it is unfair. However, only 26% people said they thought AV would be fairer, compared to 24% who think FPTP would be fairer and 14% who think there is nothing to chose between them.

On the cost of the referendum itself, 37% of people think it is a waste of taxpayers’ money, compared to 43% who think it is right that money is being spent on giving the public the final say.

Finally there were some questions about nuclear power. 43% of people said the recent events in Japan had made them less supportive of nuclear power, 48% that it had made no difference. Overall people remained broadly split over nuclear power – 40% said they supported its use, 48% that they opposed its use. The majority of people (60%) thought that nuclear power stations in the UK were safe.

There was, incidentally, a very strong gender contrast on the nuclear questions. Large gender differences in polls are actually quite rare, men and women normally have pretty similar views, nuclear weapons and power are one of those areas where their views are very different. Men are supportive of nuclear power by 54% to 37%, women are opposed to it by 25% to 57%.


179 Responses to “YouGov on Libya, AV and nuclear power”

1 2 3 4
  1. @Billy
    “What I suspect is Amber’s worry, re the rebels (my worry as well) is that there’s a danger of replacing a madman with a lunatic.”

    What evidence is there to suggest that this is likely. I would suggest that there is no more evidence than there was in Tunisia or Egypt so I would ask – should we have supported the the previous governments of these countries against their opponents?

    By the way, although the question was not asked of me, you may be interested to know that I was part of the protest in Sedgefield when Bush visited Blair’s constituency a few years ago. Iraq and Libya are two totally different situations.

  2. @Crosbat11
    Results are so far as follows:
    Socialists 25%, Communists 8%, Green 8%, Indep.Left 5%, Left Party (comm. allies) 1%, Liberal Left 1%, Trotskyists 1%. So: Total left and center-left 49%.
    UMP (Sarkozy) 17%, Minor Pro-Sarkozy parties 5, Ind. Right 10. So: Total parliamentary right 32%.
    National Front 14%.
    Center (Democrats) 1%
    Regionalists-others 4%
    So, a clear victory for the left, a very good score for National Front (in many cases they are present in the second round), a new low for UMP.
    It has to be noted that only half of the cantons were to be renewed (so half of France votes), and that Parisians (including yours truly) do not vote in this election because the General (Departmental) Council of Paris is identical to the Municipal Council, and so is elected in Municipal Election. So, no visit to the French Embassy in Athens for me today.

  3. @Billy Bob
    “… the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) found prima facie evidence in June 2007 that Megrahi had suffered a miscarriage of justice and recommended that he be granted a second appeal.”

    The following is an extract from the Times Online : It was reported the other day but is contained in an article posted a few minutes ago.

    “Libya’s former justice minister recenty came forward to claim that Colonel Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing. Mustafa Abdel-Jalil said he had proof the Libyan leader was behind the bombing which killed 270 people. Mr Abdel-Jalil stepped down as justice minister in protest of the violence used during against anti-government demonstrations. He told a Swedish newspaper that Colonel Gaddafi gave the order to bomb the plane to Megrahi, the only man convicted of the attack. He said: “To hide it, he did everything in his power to get al-Megrahi back from Scotland.”

    There is no way that guy is innocent. However I would agree that he would not have acted alone & that there are others to be tried including Gadaffi himself.

  4. @ Colin & Peter Bell

    You may wish to gather some evidence about the massacre at Abul Salim Prison in 1996.

    This is portrayed by one side as a massacre & the other as a prison riot/ break which went dreadfully wrong. Allegedly some guards were taken hostage & the remaining guards/ administration lost control of the prison. It is further alleged that over 200 guards were killed before the prison was back under their control. The remaing guards massacred the prisoners to revenge their colleagues’ deaths.

    Did the Libyan government order the massacre or not? They did not inform the relatives about what had happened. They did not hand over the guards who perpetrated the massacre to the families of the prisoners & they did not pay ‘blood money’ compensation to the aggrieved relatives. But there is no evidence that I am aware of, to show that Gaddafi personally ordered a massacre.

    Like the soldiers in Ireland, the guards found themselves in a situation where they were angry & afraid. They completely over-reacted. The Libyan administration (just like the UK administration) mounted a cover-up.

    The parallels with Bloody Sunday are striking; but I agree the numbers of dead in the Libyan incident were far greater.

    Are human rights just a matter of numbers?
    8-)

  5. Not much about UK polls on here this evening

  6. @ Peter Bell

    The point I’m trying to stress there is that nobody seems to know that much about the rebels – nor who leads them. What I’m weary of, in this instance, is separating everything into black and white. The rebels have said that they favour democracy and humanitarian rule, which is great, but to bring in your own point – that doesn’t necessarily mean that they will.

    “Iraq and Libya are two totally different situations.”

    They both had/have dictators murdering their own people.

  7. Here is the big problem as I see it.

    The 2nd Gulf War was the focus of much dispute on the grounds that it was not obviously supported by the UN. It was argued at the time that the international community would have been much less agitated about it if clear authorisation had been obtained in the form of a UN resolution.

    Now fast forward to the current UN resolution that sets clear limits and makes particular requirements (i.e. a cease fire, action to protect civilians). But there seems at present to be a significant danger that France and UK, backed by US and others, will be seen as using the UN resolution as a figleaf to cover what they wanted to do anyway. That will set a *very* dangerous precedent. It will make it very difficult if not impossible to get any worthwhile resolutions through the UN in the future.

  8. We cannot do everything, everywhere.

    We should do what we can, where we can.

    Okay then, where are the economic sanctions against regimes that oppress their people? Did PM Cameron + an entourage not visit several countries with poor human rights records & try with gusto to expand the UK trade to these countries.

    I think they did.

    I have arrived at the point where I have lost the plot & descended into petty politics!
    8-)

  9. @ Robin

    That will set a *very* dangerous precedent. It will make it very difficult if not impossible to get any worthwhile resolutions through the UN in the future.
    ——————————————-
    I am almost in despair about how UN Resolution 1973 is being mis-used; & how much the UN will be discredited as a result.
    8-)

  10. @Robert Newark

    “Mustafa Abdel-Jalil said he had proof the Libyan leader was behind the bombing which killed 270 people.”

    Is there any particular reason to believe the words of someone who is trying to depose Gadaffi and who is hoping to get France and UK to do it for him?

    Rather than listen to those with an agenda, I’d rather listen to people like Jim Swires, spokesperson for Lockerbie relatives. He has repeatedly stated over many years that he does not believe that al Megrahi was guilty.

    There is a very strong strand of opinion that al Megrahi was released principally because it was the only way to get him to drop his appeal, at which large numbers of embarrassing documents would have hit the fan.

  11. Peter Bell

    “should we have supported the the previous governments of these countries against their opponents?”

    or (though you didn’t say it)

    “should we have supported the the opponents of previous governments of these countries against their governments ?”

    Obviously neither is acceptable. Intervention on any other than humanitarian grounds is wholly unacceptable – and then only with an exit strategy.

  12. Sorry if this has been covered earlier (haven’t time to read everything), but isn’t this a dangerous precedent?
    If a government can’t put down an insurrection without being bombed, isn’t that very dangerous?
    Suppose some group starts an insurrection in the UK? Are we supposed to just let them take over?
    Also, what about the inconsistency with not bombing Saudi, Bahrain, Yemen etc? Of course we all know that everyone has wanted to get rid of Gaddafi for decades, but this does look as though ‘the West’ has just used the UN for its own purposes.

  13. Good on Virgilio at least we have the French ones. I logged onto France Soir and was amazed that every result was there and clickable right down to every parish (commune).

    I assume it’s all computerised.

    I assume that Sarkozy did not get any Gaddafi boost.

  14. Last week I alluded to a BBC report from Benghazi… a casual conversation in a cafe: “What about people who support the government?”

    “They are hiding in their houses.”

    “What will happen to them?”

    (nonchalantly) “They will be killed.”

    There are reports of gunfire in Benghazi tonght – presumably evidence that the ceasefire is being broken – but by whom?

    On the day of that the (first) ceasefire was broken, a rebel flown jet fighter was reportedly shot down by rebels.

    Plenty of plausible reports coming back to support the (facts/fog of war) coalition narrative also. Not sure whether the UN mandate was specifically to “create a level playing field” between the antagonists in a civil war though.

    Nato is pulling back from taking over reponsibilty for this coalition intervention.

  15. Amber,
    pleased that I can agree with you on something. I to was disgusted that the visit, although part political, was corrupted by the high visibility presence of arms traders. IMO the UK should not be involved in the arms trade. I appreciate that this may not be ideal in the present economic situation but arms trading is abhorrent imo.

  16. @ Pete B

    “Also, what about the inconsistency with not bombing Saudi, Bahrain, Yemen etc? Of course we all know that everyone has wanted to get rid of Gaddafi for decades, but this does look as though ‘the West’ has just used the UN for its own purposes.”

    These are no questions – in the sense that nobody asks them in public (see journalists).

    The dominant members of NATO decided to depose Gaddafi (very good) in favour of some puppets (rather bad). They went out t support the rebels. End of story. The only question is how many people can Gaddafi mobilise. If a lot, that would be really bad for NATO, if few, then it will all be quiet very soon.

    This is the only reason why the whole thing is unsettling. Considering that the Liberation Council is in alliance with foreign powers, it authorises Gaddafi to put it down (I’m talking about international law and not about the regime) with whatever means necessary (Neil A would tell you that it’s illegal to start any police action that they cannot finish). The rebels were unable to hold themselves, thus they cannot be trusted to run the country once they march on Tripoli, making the foreign presence inevitable.

    The rest is really irrelevant – there is no real humanitarian crisis, but massive humanitarian sacrifices – it was convenient, because nobody had any interest anymore to keep Gaddafi in power. The dissent coming out from various countries is mainly for domestic consumptions (if Russia wanted to do something, they would have asked Turkey the passage of their fleet, which they did in Suez).

    The intervention will throw off Gaddafi and will set back independence movements in the third world by about 15 years.

  17. @Pete B,

    It’s a valid point. But remember that this didn’t start off as an insurrection. It started off with street demonstrations by unarmed civilians in every city in Libya (exactly like Tunisia, Eqypt and the Arabian countries).

    The insurrection didn’t begin until the authorities began using utterly disproporionate force again the demonstrators. This led to widespread defections from the government and the armed forces. The armed insurrection began much later.

    I do agree that the allied countries aren’t adhering to the spirit of the resolution, and very much seem to see themselves as the air wing of a combined forces operation with the rebels (or at least the French do). I do agree that this has the potential to unsettle some of the Arab supporters of the intervention. But it has to be said that the French made no bones about this from the beginning. I watched Alain Juppe’s speech from his chair at the SC, just after the vote had been taken. He made it pretty clear that Gadaffi had to be ousted.

    I think, given the rebels’ reluctance to agree to a ceasefire (which I completely understand), it would probably be wise to try and restrict the parameters of the intervention to those Gadaffist units currently engaged in actions that endanger civilians. Perhaps once those actions have been halted, some pressure can be applied to hold fire, and a negotiation looked at.

    But the problem remains as it was in the beginning. If the rebels have agreed a ceasefire, and there is demonstration in a Libyan city that is suppressed with violence, they will be straining at the leash to take up arms again.

    @Amber,

    Curious as to where you read the “alternative version” of the Abu Salim massacre. The only direct source I’ve found is the ex-inmate that Human Rights Watch interviewed. My understanding was that the government had never given a formal account of what happened. Can you point me at a link?

  18. Several posters have either suggested or stated outright that the West have deliberately asked for the no-fly-zone purely to get rid of a government they did not like and there is no humanitarian motive. Pardon me for asking, but did not the anti-Gadafi people not ask for this to avoid being wiped out and last weekend did the Arab League not agree a resolution asking for a NFZ. I would suggest that neither group are exactly western lovers.

  19. Neil A

    “The insurrection didn’t begin until the authorities began using utterly disproporionate force again the demonstrators”

    Scots are too civil to start an insurrection – but we haven’t forgotten the actions of the English police drafted into Scotland by Thatcher during the miner’s strike.

  20. @Oldnat,

    Ah yes, I’d forgotten the bit where the Centurion tanks of the 3rd Metropolitan Police Armoured Division levelled the centre of Falkirk, killing thousands…

  21. @ Neil A

    “The insurrection didn’t begin until the authorities began using utterly disproporionate force again the demonstrators. This led to widespread defections from the government and the armed forces. The armed insurrection began much later.”

    True – except that it happened in less than 48 hours (actually, if AJ can be believed, it started with the defection of some army units). The whole thing smells conspiracy – which would be understandable after Tunesia and Egypt.

  22. @ Neil A

    There are no thousands of death… There are too many, but rather few by the standards of such an uprising.

  23. Neil A

    I suspect that your concept of “disproprtionate force” differs from that of the police that I know.

    Seems an even better argument to ensure that your interpretation of “law” doesn’t move north.

  24. @ Peter Bell

    pleased that I can agree with you on something.
    —————————————-
    :-) I am happy that we agree on something; I like common ground.

  25. @ Neil A

    Here is one source of several:
    h ttp://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/09/06/uk-libya-massacre-idUKTRE5850PJ20090906

  26. Amber

    If you are registered on the site, you no longer need to put a break in the URL

    Example

    http://www2.snp.org/

  27. @ Old Nat

    You are a cheeky monkey, with your SNP Link. You have cheered me up; I was feeling quite downcast before I saw your post.
    :-)

  28. Amber

    I exist to please! :-)

  29. Amber

    As i see the Libyan situation develop – can I join you in being downcast?

    I don’t see how a missile strike on Gadaffi’s HQ in Tripoli protects civilians,

  30. @ Crossbat11/Nick Hadley

    “I was amused with your colourful description of Nicolas Sarkozy in a post on another thread and it’s one that strikes a chord with me too. Interestingly, there is a piece in today’s Observer that suggests we are not alone in our rather dim view of the French leader. Two editors, Nicolas Domenach and Maurice Szafran, have published their off-the-record conversations with Sarkozy in a book called “OFF: What Nicolas Sarkozy Should Never Have Said To Us”. The book portrays him as an “infantile and narcissistic loner” and describes his “obsession with money” and “autocratic selfishness”. Apparently, his domestic popularity is at all time low and this may explain his determination to be seen to be taking a leading and very unFrench-like role in the military implementation of the UN resolution on Libya. As Amber has very powerfully argued, he may be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, but this doesn’t augur well for what may turn out to be a long and gruelling campaign that requires steadfastness and grim determination. Is our man Mr Sarkozy made of such stern stuff, I wonder? We will soon find out.”

    My idea of him insisting that conference calls between him, Cameron, and Obama be conducted in French instead of English? I think he’s got his issues for sure but I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Yes, he sometimes acts in ways that are less than flattering and offputing to others. But I think that’s simply his personality and the way he operates. There may be some political benefit for him but I don’t think that’s neccesarily driving him here. There is a real crisis here to confront and the coalition airstrikes have greatly reduced the chance of slaughter. Wouldn’t Segolene Royal have done same thing as Sarkozy here? I would think so. She might not have attempted to grab center stage but I think she would have been pushing for French intervention. Just thinking about the fact that Obama was pushed by his female cabinet secretaries to intervene over the objections of male cabinet secretaries, I would imagine Royal would have pushed for this.

    In any case, I don’t think Obama or Cameron are in this for political gain. Obama needs this like he needs a colonoscopy. He’s got enough problems to deal with without this Libya mess. Cameron’s junior coalition partners are the most dovish of all the parties in the UK and he takes a risk of alienating them by entering into this. And with his budget cutting proposal, this makes it all the harder to continue his program of military cuts.

  31. @ Old Nat

    Isn’t it is dispiriting. We seem utterly unable to provide human rights protection without asking what’s in it for us? Will the new regime be people we can do business with?
    8-)

  32. @ Old Nat

    “Scots are too civil to start an insurrection – but we haven’t forgotten the actions of the English police drafted into Scotland by Thatcher during the miner’s strike.”

    Okay, stupid question here. Why couldn’t Thatcher just use Scottish police?

  33. Amber

    It’s dispiriting. At my age I should probably know better!

    My introduction to politics was Eden’s Tories invading Egypt.

    Little seems to have changed in the meantime – probably why I have a passionate dislike of the UK as a political concept. It could have changed to accommodate the likes of me – but didn’t.

  34. @ SoCaL

    In any case, I don’t think Obama or Cameron are in this for political gain. Obama needs this like he needs a colonoscopy. He’s got enough problems to deal with without this Libya mess. Cameron’s junior coalition partners are the most dovish of all the parties in the UK and he takes a risk of alienating them by entering into this.
    —————————————————–
    I think you ought not to assume President Obama & PM Cameron are coming from the same place on this issue.

    And, if you check the polling, the junior coalition party supporters are some of the most hawkish about this mission. Many of the LibDem doves have already flown.
    8-)

  35. SoCalLiberal

    “Why couldn’t Thatcher just use Scottish police?”

    That’s what my father in law pondered. His conclusion (whether right or wrong) was that the Scots police were seen by the Tories as being part of what is now called “institutional Scotland” and being potentially sympathetic to the miners.

    Our police didn’t provoke the miners into violence. I’m afraid the English police deliberately did that.

  36. @ Old Nat

    SNP’s consistent anti-interventionism & its almost grudging acceptance of the UN Resolution (as opposed to a gung-ho, let’s sort that Gaddafi bloke out) makes your Party more attractive by the minute.

    Here was a chance for some opportunistic, crowd pleasing Gaddafi bashing, to balance up the much criticised action of allowing Megrahi to go home. And your Party resisted it.

    I am genuinely impressed. 8-)

  37. Amber

    I am simply relieved that they didn’t take the gung-ho line! Prior to an election it must have been a temptation.

  38. @ Crossbat11/Nick Hadley

    “You mustn’t degrade the arguments of those who disagree with you, or impugn their motives, by suggesting that this is some crude Left v Right debate and that people are adopting default partisan standpoints.”

    I agree. I don’t know any liberals who like Ghadaffi or have any allegiance to him (perhaps American leftists are different to UK leftists and European leftists). Of those who seem to actually be paying attention to this, it seems like there is more skepticism from conservatives and more support by liberals.

    I talked to both my parents this afternoon and they are not too pleased with the intervention in Libya. They’re both leftwing but their reasons for being unhappy with foreign intervention are actually pretty conservative. My dad does not understand why the U.S. needs to play the role of world policeman, is concerned about a new third war in a Middle Eastern country, wonders about the high cost, and wonders what benefits we get out of this. My mom’s attitude was different, “why are we going in there to help people who hate us?” But there’s no support for or allegiance to Ghadaffi (if there was, I’d find it really strange and bizarre).

    In light of Iraq and Afghanistan, I think it’s only reasonable to question whether an interventionist foray into a Middle Eastern country is a good idea.

  39. @ Amber

    “I think you ought not to assume President Obama & PM Cameron are coming from the same place on this issue.

    And, if you check the polling, the junior coalition party supporters are some of the most hawkish about this mission. Many of the LibDem doves have already flown.”

    Well then maybe the Liberal Democrats have got more sense than I thought! You know when a party abroad claims both your party name and your ideology, you can only hope that they don’t embarass you. :)

    Politically, Obama gains nothing from this. It costs us money in a time of great deficit, it distracts from far more pressing economic issues, it diverts our military from Afghanistan, it risks alienation of other major powers. And because this is an international action, any success doesn’t get attributed to Obama. Instead, he’s going to have critics saying “why are we in a third Middle Eastern country?” And he’s got to worry about some of his dovish supporters on the left who are anti-war and are going to be disappointed (even if they’re supportive of the intervention, they’re not enthusiastic).

    It seems like Cameron gains little from this (though I know U.S. politics far better than UK politics).

  40. @ Old Nat

    “That’s what my father in law pondered. His conclusion (whether right or wrong) was that the Scots police were seen by the Tories as being part of what is now called “institutional Scotland” and being potentially sympathetic to the miners.

    Our police didn’t provoke the miners into violence. I’m afraid the English police deliberately did that.”

    What would be the point of provoking miners into violence? Wouldn’t you want sympathetic police officers who might difuse a potentially tense situation? When my dad was a cop, as a reserve he got called up for duty any time there was a major protest in town. What became a common occurence is that he would meet protesters who he knew (including his sister and brother in law!). This would always diffuse tensions and help maintain the peacefulness and order of demonstrations. I guess it’s not a great example because there are very few protests that turn violent. But my feeling is the most successful protest is one that is peaceful and orderly and results in the fewest arrests and violence.

  41. @ Old Nat

    “My introduction to politics was Eden’s Tories invading Egypt.

    Little seems to have changed in the meantime – probably why I have a passionate dislike of the UK as a political concept. It could have changed to accommodate the likes of me – but didn’t.”

    I understand and respect your point of view. With any foreign policy action, my parents and their generation tend to be very skeptical because they were brought up with Vietnam. I’m a lot younger than you are so maybe I haven’t had the time to gain the wisdom and cynicism yet that come with age. But I think though you’ve got to evaluate each situation as it comes and not neccesarily let one past bad act taint the present good act.

  42. SoCalLiberal

    “What would be the point of provoking miners into violence?”

    Because this was more of a war than a police action (the fact that the miners were fighting the wrong war at the wrong time under a leader who wasn’t acting in their interests, simply makes it like most other wars!)

    Violence by the miners was used to justify Thatcher’s approach in the community that mattered to her – potential Tory voters.

  43. This story strikes me as being very important. I don’t know if anyone else has mentioned it, so sorry if already discussed:

    “Nick Clegg has told David Cameron he will not pull the plug on the Coalition Government if he is beaten in the referendum on ditching Britain’s first- past-the-post voting system…

    Mr Cameron revealed Mr Clegg’s remarks at a meeting with Tory MPs in Downing Street last week.

    Pressed to say if their alliance could survive if Mr Clegg’s dream of abolishing the first-past-the-post system was dashed, the Prime Minister said the Lib Dem leader had assured him it would.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368067/Nick-Clegg-I-wont-use-AV-No-vote-excuse-quit-Coalition.html

    If this is true, then an awful lot of people have been jumping to false conclusions about the effects of a ‘No’ vote.

    The current best price on a 2015 UK GE is 13/8 (Victor Chandler). That must be good value, unless someone initiates a sudden Lib Dem split (unlikely IMHO). I would suggest that 9/2 against a 2011 UK GE is poor value.

  44. LASZLO

    “There are no thousands of death”

    How do you know?

    Presumably you have seen the figures quoted yesterday.

    Why don’t we wait & see what the body count is?

    At least we can be certain that in Benghazi it is less than Gaddaffi intended.

  45. The overwhelming majority – a remarkable 81% – stated that “if the Coalition Government want to show they are on the side of ordinary families they should start by scrapping the planned increase in fuel duty”. [comres 21/3/11]

  46. 77% say scrapping planned duty increase in Budget wouldn’t go far enough. Comres

  47. Latest death tally = 15,000
    8,000 of those Armed Rebels
    2,000 of those Libyan forces
    5,000 of those civilians

  48. Gaddhafi is a bit more intelligent than Arthur Scargill.

  49. It’s interesting how unaffected people are so gung-ho about sacking civil servants but up in arms about an increase in petrol duty (which does affect them).

    Cuts are much popular than tax rises of course…unless they affect you personally.

  50. Most stupid military comment so far: as titular head of the Libyan military Gadaffi is therefore a legitimate military target.

    Bad news for HRH and the wider Royal family with their honorary Colonleships then.

    @SoCalLiberal

    The use of police from outside the immediate region was a feature of the miner’s strike. There was almost certainly a desire to stop people having empathy or sympathy with the strikers. Thatcher was driven by the need for revenge after the NUM had played a significant part in bringing down the Tory government in the early 70s, this was unfinished business.

    The effect of the strike is still very evident in the former coalfields…

1 2 3 4