Tory poll surge as trust in Blair collapses

Daily Telegraph

[may18]

By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent (Filed: 30/05/2003)

The first signs of a solidly-based Tory recovery for a decade are revealed today in an opinion poll that shows a collapse of trust in Tony Blair is beginning to hurt Labour.

A YouGov survey for The Telegraph puts the Conservatives just one point behind Labour, their highest poll rating since 1992 apart from a blip during the fuel crisis in the autumn of 2000.

The results are a further shot in the arm for Iain Duncan Smith four weeks after the Conservatives gained 561 council seats to become the largest party in local government in England. Tory strategists insisted last night that they still had much to do but claimed that policies on university funding, taxation and Europe were striking a chord with voters.

For the first time since Mr Duncan Smith became leader in September 2001, more voters - 19 per cent - believe he would be a better prime minister than the 15 per cent who back Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader.

Click to enlarge The Tories also lie just one point behind Labour on the issue of economic competence, one of Labour's strongest cards at the 2001 general election. The findings will cause alarm in Labour ranks at a time when Mr Blair is under pressure from his backbenchers and the party rank and file to explain why no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.

The YouGov survey puts Labour on 37 per cent, down three points, the Conservatives on 36 per cent, up four per cent, and the Liberal Democrats on 20 per cent, down one per cent.

A month ago, when the Government was enjoying a post-war rise in popularity - the so-called "Baghdad bounce" - the gap between Labour and Conservatives was eight points.

The Tories' recent pledge to abolish student tuition fees appears to be having a positive influence. Their proposals stand in contrast to Labour's plans to allow universities to charge up to £3,000 a year for courses.

Although 52 per cent of voters agreed that universities are "chronically underfunded", 43 per cent said they were "more sympathetic to the Conservatives" after their promise to scrap tuition fees. Among parents and students the figure was 53 per cent.

Even more worrying for Mr Blair is the dramatic fall in trust in his Government.

Just 29 per cent think that, on balance, the Government has been honest and trustworthy - almost half the level, 56 per cent, of the 2001 election. On the other hand, 62 per cent said it was not honest - more than double the 2001 level.

Mr Blair's personal ratings are also suffering - 38 per cent now think he would make the best prime minister, down five per cent on April and 14 per cent on 2001.

Strategists believe Labour's splits over the euro are harming the party in the same way that divisions dented Tory popularity during the later years of John Major's premiership.

Labour officials point out that the party is, in historical terms, still in a remarkably strong mid-term position. Most governing parties languish well behind the Opposition in mid-term. To maintain the momentum, Mr Duncan Smith is planning a major speech - entitled New Europe: Old Europe - next month in which he will outline his thinking on Britain's relations with the EU and Europe's relationship with America.

One aide to Mr Duncan Smith said the party was finally getting its ideas across. He said: "It's one thing to have the policies, quite another to communicate them. We are beginning to do that."

[AntiGuv]

Incidentally, one final point before I leave this issue alone for good. I am not arguing that Iraq has nothing (much less that they never had anything) in terms of WMDs. What I am arguing is that the preponderance of the evidence now strongly suggests that anything they may have was absurdly trivial compared to what they were alleged to have. I believe I've accurately described the prewar public characterization of Iraq's WMD capability. Others may decide for themselves whether what's eventually shown to be present remotely approaches what had been alleged prior to the war.

[AmishDude]

I checked out your link. They forgot "bifurcation". This is the method of generating two (or more) tangential issues so as to avoid discussion of the main topic. I suppose it has elements of the straw man and others, but I've found that anyone who makes 3 distinct replies to a single post is usually losing the argument -- badly.

[AntiGuv]

My argument with you in particular is simple:

Where is Saddam Hussein? We have been unable to find him. He, therefore, must never have existed.

That is a false analogy - period. It's a cute repartee, but nonetheless a false analogy.

[AmishDude]

Incidentally, one final point before I leave this issue alone for good.

Not a logical fallacy, but an FR technique: "scurrying".

I am not arguing that Iraq has nothing (much less that they never had anything) in terms of WMDs. What I am arguing is that the preponderance of the evidence now strongly suggests that anything they may have was absurdly trivial compared to what they were alleged to have.

Wow. Let's see . . . False Dilemma, From Ignorance, Straw Man

I believe I've accurately described the prewar public characterization of Iraq's WMD capability.

Untestability.

Others may decide for themselves whether what's eventually shown to be present remotely approaches what had been alleged prior to the war.

First: Your memory might be faulty. What you "recall" is mostly the Anti-Bush forces' representation of the prewar characterization. Second: the quantity of Saddam's WMD's is the biggest Straw Man in the logical fallacy cornfield. It only takes one. Saddam was supposed to have zero. None. Zilch. Nada. UN resolutions said so. The game was over when the mobile bio weapons lab was found.

It would be like searching a meth lab, finding tons of drug processing equipment but no meth. (I'm sure that's a false analogy, too, but it's the best option I have to making my point. I'm unable to speak . . . slowly . . . and . . . carefully . . . with single syllable words so you can understand.) The search wasn't a failure. The reason we're so concerned we haven't found the germs and chemicals is that they might have gone across the western border.

[AntiGuv]

Not a logical fallacy, but an FR technique: "scurrying".

No, it's recognition of an effort in futility. I find rhetorical word games & debate over semantics tiresome. Moreover, I don't really care whether I persuade you or not. Since my statements are clear & unequivocal, your persuasion is really all we would be arguing about at this point and I'm simply not interested. Sorry.

If you wish to advance an unambiguous argument, then I will resume the debate on its merits. If you want to play at rhetorical jousting, I decline to participate. Have a nice day.

[AmishDude]

If you want to play at rhetorical jousting, I decline to participate.

Wait a minute! You started the whole "logical fallacy" business. My second response used your language, your link.

If you wish to advance an unambiguous argument,

Ambiguity is in the eye of the beholder (or the mind of the confused, to be more accurate).

then I will resume the debate on its merits. . . . Have a nice day.

Oh, did I tell you about the biggest trait of the scurriers? They never actually leave the debate. They trumpet their exit so as to get in the last word.

[AntiGuv]

Fine. What are we debating. Formulate your argument in a coherent statement and I will reply to whatever that is.

[AntiGuv]

Make that second period a question mark. I will return in 15-20 minutes. Then, we may debate whatever it is you wish to debate since we're obviously not going to debate my original statements.

[AmishDude]

I will return in 15-20 minutes. Then, we may debate whatever it is you wish to debate since we're obviously not going to debate my original statements.

But you told me to "Have a nice day". But now you're back. Those are mutually exclusive. Look at #84. It's there. I'm not going to bother to cut and paste yet again.

[Eva]

The stated purpose for going to war with Iraq was regime change. The reason for that change was stated as the fact that Saddam had failed to disclose what he had done with his known WMD and was in violation of numerous UN agreements. That fact has not changed and was not duplicitous in any way.

There were, of course, other reasons for removing Saddam from power, but sometimes the simplest statement is the best choice. We still don't know where Saddam's weapons are, but it seems obvious that if he no longer possessed them that he would have revealed their ultimate disposition, as agreed in the UN resolution, rather than face invasion. Don't you agree?

[Matchett-PI]

"Saddam Hussein could easily vanish into a hole in a basement wall. 15,000 to 30,000 chemical munitions; thousands of tons of weaponized chemical arms; hundreds of gallons of biological agents; a reconstituted nuclear program with procurement of uranium & missile cores; a fleet of remote-guided WMD drones; dozens of mobile biochem laboratories; and dozens of Scud missile delivery systems could not..."

The answer to your concerns is found in my two earlier posts, HERE and HERE

Did you miss them? If so, please read and analyze the information carefully and provide the evidence that intellectually honest, knowledgeable people will recognize as legitimately refuting the points with which you disagree.

[AntiGuv]

Very well, then. We will debate your post #84.

am not arguing that Iraq has nothing (much less that they never had anything) in terms of WMDs. What I am arguing is that the preponderance of the evidence now strongly suggests that anything they may have was absurdly trivial compared to what they were alleged to have.

Wow. Let's see . . . False Dilemma, From Ignorance, Straw Man

It is none of these things. If you wish to level the accusation, then demonstrate its veracity (as I did with your False Analogy earlier). Explain how that statement is a False Dilemma, Argument from Ignorance, or Straw Man.

I believe I've accurately described the prewar public characterization of Iraq's WMD capability.

Untestability.

That statement is by no stretch of the imagination untestable. One need merely review statements by administration figures and subsequent media accounts. I would initiate the 'test' here:

Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Programs CIA Report

UK Iraq Dossier In Full

2003 State Of The Union Address

Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council

Others may decide for themselves whether what's eventually shown to be present remotely approaches what had been alleged prior to the war.

First: Your memory might be faulty.

My memory is not faulty - I remember quite distinctly the allegations and the perceptions which were advanced prior the war. Whatever the case may be, others should feel free to decide the above on the basis of their own memory. My memory is of no consequence. In their own minds, they know of what I speak..

What you "recall" is mostly the Anti-Bush forces' representation of the prewar characterization.

What I recall - as demonstrated - is based in great part on those sources linked above. I would not characterize any of those as "mostly Anti-Bush forces" by any stretch..

Second: the quantity of Saddam's WMD's is the biggest Straw Man in the logical fallacy cornfield. It only takes one. Saddam was supposed to have zero. None. Zilch.UN resolutions said so.

I never stated otherwise. Whatever assumption to the contrary exists nowhere but in your own fevered imagination.

The game was over when the mobile bio weapons lab was found.

I commented on these in another thread. This was my remark:

In my personal assessment (with severely limited information), the two truck-mounted processing units were used for a clandestine biological program at some point or another. In my observation and extrapolation (seeing them on TV and reading publicly disclosed analysis) they were abandoned quite some while ago. I have little doubt that they will be used to bolster the WMD reports, in any event, which Blair stated will be released at some future time.

It would be like searching a meth lab, finding tons of drug processing equipment but no meth...

Indeed, it would. None of my statements were meant to indicate otherwise, as that post from a tangential thread should demonstrate. Any assumption to the contrary exists nowhere except in your own fevered imagination.

The search wasn't a failure. The reason we're so concerned we haven't found the germs and chemicals is that they might have gone across the western border.

Nah. That's BS. The reason the administration is so concerned is because they wish to establish the veracity of the intelligence and the credibility of the war effort. This above may be the reason you're concerned, but that's all it is..

[AntiGuv]

I do not have any disagreement whatsoever with the proposition that Iraq developed and possessed WMDs in the past, as iterated by the first article. I have no basis upon which to draw a conclusion regarding the speculated transfer of WMDs to Syria, as no evidence establishing that allegation has been made public.

[AmishDude]

1. False Dilemma: You indicate two choices. Either the administration matches your characterization of the necessity of WMDs or they have failed to prove their case.
2. From Ignorance: We haven't found "enough", therefore, "enough" does not exist.
3. Straw Man: You've changed the entire terms of the debate. Now it is no longer enough that there be evidence of WMDs, but that there be enough sufficient to your standars. Recall that intelligence is sparse because Saddam ran a police state!

(as I did with your False Analogy earlier)

You are taking it so seriously! Of course it was a false analogy, you . . . .

*sigh* It was a joke.

Untestability.

One need merely review statements by administration figures and subsequent media accounts.

You review them. And quote them. You can link the Encyclopaedia Brittanica if you want, I ain't clickin'. I'm not going to do your work for you.

Oh, and if they said Iraq has x and we find x/10, that doesn't mean the other 9x/10 does not exist. Just remember that the US military found banned (not-necessarily-WMD) weapons that Blix was unable to find in over a year of resumed inspections.

My memory is not faulty - I remember quite distinctly the allegations and the perceptions which were advanced prior the war. Whatever the case may be, others should feel free to decide the above on the basis of their own memory. My memory is of no consequence. In their own minds, they know of what I speak.

How arrogant. "Well, those of us right-thinking people know, and if you don't agree you're just not willing to admit what's there. Wink, wink."

It only takes one [WMD].

I never stated otherwise. Whatever assumption to the contrary exists nowhere but in your own fevered imagination.

Then what are you complaining about? Saddam had a year to hide and destroy anything. You can't possibly expect to find all that Saddam is suspected of having.

The game was over when the mobile bio weapons lab was found.

In my personal assessment

Well, hold the phone right there, QED and all that.

(with severely limited information)

No? Really?

the two truck-mounted processing units were used for a clandestine biological program at some point or another. . . . they were abandoned quite some while ago.

They were illegal in 1991. What were they using them for in 12 years? Bookmobiles?

It is extraordinary to me the cynicism with which you approach the US administration and yet you fail to apply it to the former Baathists.

Any assumption to the contrary exists nowhere except in your own fevered imagination.

Get a new adjective, huh?

The search wasn't a failure. The reason we're so concerned we haven't found the germs and chemicals is that they might have gone across the western border.

Nah. That's BS.

Oh, never mind then. What was I thinking? I mean we all know there were no military objectives. Just PR considerations. And, hey, who cares if Syria has WMDs? Right? Right?

[AntiGuv]

False Dilemma: You indicate two choices. Either the administration matches your characterization of the necessity of WMDs or they have failed to prove their case.

If by "prove their case" you mean prove the case for war, then your statement is incorrect. I am not presenting that choice, but rather, you have assumed that in your own fevered imagination.

From Ignorance: We haven't found "enough", therefore, "enough" does not exist.

Lack of proof is not proof, but lack of proof is lack of proof. What I have alleged is lack of proof. Anything further is an assumption which exists nowhere aside from your own fevered imagination.

Straw Man: You've changed the entire terms of the debate. Now it is no longer enough that there be evidence of WMDs, but that there be enough sufficient to your standars [sic].

That is false. I have never claimed that - in order to justify war - there need be sufficient evidence of WMDs to establish that the prewar WMD thesis be correct. I have simply stated that the prewar WMD thesis is strictly defunct and that this raises substantive questions regarding U.S. intelligence. Any further inference of how much I consider "enough" resides purely in your fevered imagination.

You are taking it so seriously! Of course it was a false analogy, you . . . .

Thank you for the concession.

You review them. And quote them. You can link the Encyclopaedia Brittanica if you want, I ain't clickin'. I'm not going to do your work for you.

I have refuted the charge of Untestability which was the only requirement in this debate. Whether you see fit to actually carry through and test the statements is entirely your concern.

Oh, and if they said Iraq has x and we find x/10, that doesn't mean the other 9x/10 does not exist.

Of course not. That would be an Argument From Ignorance. What it does mean as that we haven't proven the other 9x/10 exists, which is what I've stated. If you choose to believe that the other 9x/10 exists despite the fact that it has not been proven to exist, then your faith is none of my concern.

Just remember that the US military found banned (not-necessarily-WMD) weapons that Blix was unable to find in over a year of resumed inspections.

I never argued to the contrary, nor was my original intent to suggest otherwise. If you drew that assumption, well you know the only place it exists..

How arrogant. "Well, those of us right-thinking people know, and if you don't agree you're just not willing to admit what's there. Wink, wink."

Deal with it. You have resorted to juvenile insults several times thus far. I have chosen to leave my arguments to stand on their own merits. If you did not desire a hostile debate then you should not have invited one..

Then what are you complaining about? Saddam had a year to hide and destroy anything. You can't possibly expect to find all that Saddam is suspected of having.

I have not complained, though others certainly have on the same basis as that which I've stated. I have described circumstances as they appear - whatever further implications you've inferred exist only in your.. well, you know..

Well, hold the phone right there, QED and all that.

If you had read the original exchange (I did explicitly state that this was from a tangential thread) then you would know that the question to which I replied was an explicit request for my personal assessment. But, of course, you did not read that thread but rather seized on whatever you perceived as an opening for another of your snide, infantile jabs..

They were illegal in 1991. What were they using them for in 12 years? Bookmobiles?

Of course they were. Again, the comment here was only meant to express my view of what they signify. The phrasing was appropriate in its original context. But, then, you don't wish to debate on substance.. Do you?

It is extraordinary to me the cynicism with which you approach the US administration and yet you fail to apply it to the former Baathists.

I approach all governments with cynicism as one might deduce from my screenname. The one however, does not cancel out the other. As you should know by now, this statement is a False Dilemma.... ;)

Get a new adjective, huh?

I wanted to conclude our exchange at post #81 - you insisted on continuing our discussion. Unfortunately, you will therefore simply have to tolerate my rhetorical style until you've decided that our conversation has reached an impasse (as I already concluded at post #81).

Oh, never mind then. What was I thinking?

I don't know, but I did notify you of my indifference to that in post #85.

I mean we all know there were no military objectives. Just PR considerations.

Another False Dilemma..

And, hey, who cares if Syria has WMDs? Right? Right?

Yet another False Dilemma..

[AmishDude]

you have assumed that in your own fevered imagination.

aside from your own fevered imagination.

No kidding. You used this vapid phrase two distinct times. It's not even clever the first time.

That is false. I have never claimed that - in order to justify war - there need be sufficient evidence of WMDs to establish that the prewar WMD thesis be correct. I have simply stated that the prewar WMD thesis is strictly defunct and that this raises substantive questions regarding U.S. intelligence.

Say what you want, but concern with the skill with which the intelligence community conducts itself hardly justifies such a level of intractibility and humorlessness.

Thank you for the concession.

But the point of it being a false analogy was to show how false . . .

Never mind. Just never mind.

I have refuted the charge of Untestability

Only in your own pyretic phantasm. You just posted links which I declined to click. Refutation requires effort on your part.

If you choose to believe that the other 9x/10 exists despite the fact that it has not been proven to exist, then your faith is none of my concern.

What is your opinion on the flatness of the earth?

Better yet, if a tree is found to be on the floor of the forest, did it actually fall?

Deal with it.

Well, that's persuasive.

You have resorted to juvenile insults

Oh, give me a little more credit than that. While I admit I am not arguing with the style of those who were improperly potty trained, I enjoy the barbs -- whether you catch them or not.

I have chosen to leave my arguments to stand on their own merits.

Interesting choice of phrase. Have you neglected to do laundry lately?

If you had read the original exchange

One more time: I am not going to spend my day doing your work for you.

another of your snide, infantile jabs..

1. Reach around your back to your posterior.
2. Remove stick.
3. Repeat as necessary.

They were illegal in 1991. What were they using them for in 12 years? Bookmobiles?

Of course they were.

I assume you refer to the first sentence with your response.

But, then, you don't wish to debate on substance.. Do you?

It is impossible to debate on that which does not exist.

I approach all governments with cynicism as one might deduce from my screenname.

Have you ever heard of the FR screenname rule? Just curious.

I wanted to conclude our exchange at post #81

Bzzt! You wanted to get in the last word. You can conclude the exchange any time you want.

I mean we all know there were no military objectives. Just PR considerations.

Another False Dilemma..[sic]

One you've created. Recall that concern that the WMDs moved across the Syrian border was "BS".

[AntiGuv]

Excellent. It certainly appears now that we agree this conversation has exhausted its possibilities. Have a nice day!

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Tell that to the Iraqi children freed from prison.

[Bonaparte]

Saddam Hussein spent years dodging inspectors. He delayed, diverted and deceived them. He submitted unresponsive documentation. Even Blix constantly complained about this. Such behavior is characteristic of someone who has something to hide and what could that something be if not forbidden weaponry?

This is only common sense.

And thanks for clarifying the intended meaning of your post. IMO, your expectation that the bulk of Saddam's weaponry should be easy to locate has caused you to over-generalize from the available information.

[AmishDude]

Excellent. It certainly appears now that we agree this conversation has exhausted its possibilities. Have a nice day!

You just can't leave gracefully. Your inability to argue your point is not demonstrated if you fail to get in the last word. It would simply be a coincidence.