The daily YouGov poll for the Sun shows topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 42%, LD 11%, still a pretty consistant Labour lead of around about 8 points.

Tables are here – worth noting are the Libya questions, which YouGov have been asking daily since military intervention began. Today for the first time more than half of respondents think the intervention is going badly (54% badly to 24% well). There has been a long, slow trend of increasing pessimism about our involvement in Libya – presumably what’s pushed it over 50% was the assassination of the rebel general this past week.

On whether it is right or wrong for Britain to intervene in Libya 34% now think it is right, 43% wrong.

65 Responses to “A majority now think the Libyan intervention is going badly”

1 2
  1. @OLDNAT

    Kosovo? Sierra Leone?

    @Chris Neville-Smith

    My biggest problems with Libya are that
    1) what we’re doing seems to be largely ineffective if the aim was to remove Gadaffi quickly and avoid a civil war
    2) what we’re doing clearly exceeds the UN mandate, to an extent far beyond the case in Iraq. If there was any pretence at following the mandate then we’d also take out artillery etc that was in the hands of the rebels.

  2. “US debt crisis: Barack Obama tells America it must live within its means
    President Barack Obama said that the debt bill finally passed by Congress on Tuesday was only the “first step” towards ensuring the world’s most powerful economy lived within its means.”

    Headline-Daily Telegraph.

    One small step for a man……… someone once said :-)

    (I’ve been warned about looking to deeply at 2010 vote sub-samples due to low sample numbers – so I’m using my weighted figures instead)

    LibVI has been trending upward since approx the 19th (that’s when my figures start to show – so 10 polls) –

    From my 30-day weighted figures (which mute large fluctuations, but are somewhat slow at showing trend changes)-
    9.07 (19th) to 9.53 (latest) so +0.46 (which doesn’t seem like much, but it has definitely been a trend upward).
    Tory VI has fallen from 36.21 to 35.75 (-0.43) over the same period.
    Lab VI has increased from 42.53 to 42.81 (+0.23) over that period.
    ‘Others’ have fallen from 12.08 to 11.92 (-0.22) over that period.
    Lab have been moving toward a stable 43, while Tory VI continues to fall toward 35 (from 36) and Lib up to 10 (from 9).

    So while there is probably movement between all parties (as there always is), it seems to be that Lib is gaining at the expense of Con.

    Note – I could be very, very wrong (the more likely scenario), but that’s my reading of the figures.

  4. Oh, and it’s becoming clear from my figures (by 7-day weighted and 30-day weighted) that gov approval is stabilising at around -27.

  5. valerie @ Old Nat/John B Dick

    “That UK Governments are both stupid and incompetent with regard to foreign affairs and military interventions should surprise no one”
    Why single out foreign affairs? This is normal.

    Gosh if I’m sure if I made such a comment about Scottish governments, you would have my guts for garters and words like “offensive” and “silly” would be bandied about!

    Scotland has had better government under four FM’s of two parties under a coalition, minority government and now a majority government than it has had at any other period in my lifetime.

    It is not the inherent wisdom of Scots politicians that matters, (though I believe all four FMs showed a deeper understanding and respect for democratic principles than concern for promoting the agenda of the foreign owned press) but the fact that the principles, process and structure of the parliament fosters evidence-based decisions.

    The current unexpected position of the SNP government is to a large extent not their doing but SLAB’s, but so far as it can be seen positively, what people say gives the SNP brand a relative advantage is their reputation for “competence”.

    It’s sad that expectations – based on comparisons with Westminster – should be so low that mere competence should be a distinguishing attribute marking out the winner.

    If the SNP should manage to raise their game from “competence” to “vision” – and their innovative thinking on food/energy/water/research may yet do that – then they will get the support they need for independence, for they will deserve it, and it will seem to many to be worth the gamble.

    Do I detect in your distinction between “our” government for devolved matters and “your” government for reserved matters, that you regard the UK parliament as the English Parliament responsible to voters in England?

    You are perfectly entitled to criticise the Scottish Parliament or government. If you say devolutiion or independence is unnecessary, I am inclined to agree with you.

    There would be no devolved parliament and no SNP were it not for the stupidity and incompetence of UK governments of both parties imposing solutions conceived in and for the South East of England and applying them to a part of the country where they are bizarrely irrelevant because of different circumstances relating to population, geography, history, culture and values.

  6. @Thesheep

    There’s no question that Libya is more in excess of the UN mandate than Iraq was. Libya involves air cover that is questionably straying into assisting one side in a civil war, whilst Iraq was a full-blown invasion with no UN mandate at all (unless you believe it was justified by the original resolution 1664, which virtually no-one does apart from Tony Blair).

    But anyway …

    The complication with Libya is that it’s hard to separate Gadaffi’s future from protecting civilians in Misrata and eastern Libya. There is no point in agreeing a ceasefire if Gadaffi simply used it to get all his tanks into urban areas (where it is harder for NATO forces to strike) then start fighting again. It may have been possible to accept a ceasefire where Gadaffi withdrew his forces from eastern Libya and Misrata completely, but it’s doubtful that Gadaffi would have ever agreed to that. We also know that Gadaffi’s previous so-called ceasefires meant absolutely nothing.

    Coupled with the fact that Gadaffi’s most recent diplomatic gesture to the West was a hero’s welcome for the Lockerbie bomber, what I suspect happened is that the Governments of France, Britain and the USA thought, “Right, f*** this, let’s just get rid of him.” However, I think was a mistake. Had Gadaffi been given the option to withdraw from rebel-held territory in return for being left alone by NATO, there is a chance he might have taken that up, and that would have been the best possible outcome within the UN mandate to protect civilians. If that failed, then at least NATO could have argued that Gadaffi had forced them into this course of action.

    However, on progress, NATO’s actions are a lot more effective than most people think. Firstly, without NATO’s involvement, it wouldn’t be a stalemate, it would have been conquest of eastern Libya with whatever revenge Gadaffi had in store. But even so, it’s only a stalemate if you measure progress by which cities between Tripoli and Bhengazi are in rebel hands. That has barely changed for months, but that’s not where the rebels are making gains. The rebels are making gains in the mountains around Tripoli, cutting off most of the remaining supply lines, and that is a much bigger threat than the Brega front. The analogy that springs to mind for me is World War I in 1918. For much of 1918, the Germans were actually taking territory, but with the supply lines to the sea cut off, the German regime was disintegrating at the same time.

    I’m more concerned about how, rather than if, Tripoli falls. 42 years is a long time to harbour resentment and plan recriminations. The transitional national council know that it is in their interest to be seen as the good guys by NATO. The question: is this enough?

  7. Liz Hancock @ Alan

    “It would be nice to see us involved in protecting civilians from genocide in a country where there is no oil. Our conscience it seems is only pricked when that murky liquid is in the area.”

    Actually foreign affairs is not the most fruitful in the search for incompetence, Stupid, yes, and as you and others point out it is more a question of values.

  8. Has Labour been on 45 under ED?

    Is this linked to a concatenation of events and trends.

    ED’s growth in stature.
    Coalition splits?

  9. YG

  10. Thesheep

    “Kosovo? Sierra Leone?”

    I said that I remain unsure about operations within the former Yugoslavia.

    Sierra Leone is much more complicated. The involvement of Sandline providing arms (with UK Government approval) in 1997 in a dubious interpretation of the UN resolution that barred arms supplies to Sierra Leone suggests that the UK was, in fact taking sides in a civil war. That the operation was successful is clear. Was it justifiable, in terms of ensuring regime change? That’s another matter altogether.

  11. Chris Lane,I Would suggest this might be slightly nearer
    to home.Rising costs of food, energy and petrol.Factors
    which effect everyone whatever political party they support
    or how they are placed financially.Plus crucially there does
    not seem to be any early end to this.

  12. @Chris Lane

    10th and 15th March,

    Con was on 34/35% and LDs 9%.

  13. Also 11th Feb and 30th March,

    Cons on 35% and LDs 9%.

  14. A majority think the war in Libya is going badly?

    What do the majority in Libya think?

  15. Anthony:

    “The daily YouGov poll for the Sun shows topline figures of CON 35%, LAB 42%, LD 11%, still a pretty consistant Labour lead of around about 8 points.”

    Sorry if I seem pedantic, but I am failing to see this. The last five polls were 6,7,9,4,6 (average of 6.4)

    Of the ones on the list on the right as I look there are twenty four from 5th July to 29th July. The average of these is 6.46. Surely it would be more accurate to state “Labour lead of around 7 points” or “Labour lead of around 6 points”.

    Just wondering if I am missing something or what?

1 2