Kerry leads overseas

A poll conducted in 10 countries reveals strong public support for the Democratic candidate and growing contempt for the Bush administration.

By Alan Travis

George W. Bush has squandered a wealth of sympathy around the world toward America since Sept. 11, with public opinion in 10 leading countries — including some of its closest allies — growing more hostile to the United States while he has been in office.

According to a survey, voters in eight out of the 10 countries, including Britain, want to see the Democratic challenger, John Kerry, defeat President Bush in next month’s U.S. presidential election.

The poll, conducted by 10 of the world’s leading newspapers, including France’s Le Monde, Japan’s Asahi Shimbun, Canada’s La Presse, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Guardian, also shows that on balance world opinion does not believe that the war in Iraq has made a positive contribution to the fight against terror.

The results show that in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Japan, Spain and South Korea, a majority of voters share a rejection of the Iraq invasion, contempt for the Bush administration, a growing hostility to the U.S. and a not-too-strong endorsement of Kerry. But they all make a clear distinction between this kind of anti-Americanism and expressing a dislike of American people. On average 68 percent of those polled say they have a favorable opinion of Americans. The 10-country poll suggests that rarely has an American administration faced such isolation and lack of public support among its closest allies.

The only exceptions to this trend are the Israelis, who back Bush 2-1 over Kerry and see the U.S. as their security umbrella, and the Russians, who, despite their traditional anti-Americanism, recorded unexpectedly favorable attitudes toward the U.S. in the survey, conducted in the immediate aftermath of the Beslan tragedy.

The U.K. results of the poll, conducted by ICM research for the Guardian, reveal a growing disillusionment with the U.S. among the British public, fueled by a strong personal antipathy toward Bush. The ICM survey shows that if the British had a vote in the U.S. presidential elections on Nov. 2 they would vote 50 percent for Kerry and only 22 percent for Bush.

Sixty percent of British voters say they don’t like Bush, which rises to a startling 77 percent among those under 25. The rejection of Bush is strongest in France, where 72 percent say they would back Kerry. But it is also very strong in traditionally pro-American South Korea, where fears of a preemptive U.S. strike against North Korea have translated into 68 percent support for Kerry.

In Britain the growth in anti-Americanism is not so marked as in France, Japan, Canada, South Korea and Spain, where more than 60 percent say their view of the United States has deteriorated since Sept. 11. But a sizable and emerging minority — 45 percent — of British voters say their image of the U.S. has got worse in the past three years; only 15 percent say it has improved.

There is widespread agreement that America will remain the world’s largest economic power. This is underlined by the 73 percent of British voters who say that the U.S. now wields an excessive influence on international affairs, a situation that 67 percent see as continuing for the foreseeable future.

A majority in Britain also believe that U.S. democracy is no longer a model for others.

But perhaps a more startling finding from the Guardian/ICM poll is that a majority of British voters — 51 percent — say that they believe American culture is threatening Britain’s culture. This is a fear shared by Canadians, Mexicans and South Koreans, but it is more usually associated with the French than the British. Perhaps the endless television reruns of “Friends” and “The Simpsons” are beginning to take their toll.

ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,008 adults age 18 and over by telephone between Sept. 22 and 23. Interviews were conducted across the country, and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults.

For full results, commentary and methodology, see www.guardian.co.uk/uselection.

- 0Comments
- Permalink
- Print
- Short URL
Share:
- Email
- Twitter
- Facebook
- LinkedIn
- Digg
- Reddit
- StumbleUpon
- ShareThis

Migration squeeze

Under Britain's proposed immigration scheme, only skilled workers who speak and write English are welcome to settle permanently.

By Alan Travis and Michael White

The British government is to close the door on low-skilled migrants from the developing world who come to Britain legally under existing work permit schemes, Home Secretary Charles Clarke disclosed Monday. The measure is part of the Labor Party’s five-year plan for immigration and asylum, which includes a “points system” for new migrants that critics fear will lead to a “two-tier guest-worker” labor force.

Skilled workers — those with qualifications equal to A-levels and above — will be able to settle in Britain with their families once they have worked for five years and passed an English-language and citizenship test.

But lower-skilled migrants, mainly from other E.U. countries, will not be able to bring their families, will be barred from claiming welfare benefits and will be expected to leave after five years. Those from “higher-risk countries” will be required to deposit an unspecified financial bond — which they will forfeit if they fail to return home.

Clarke received praise and criticism from M.P.’s when he explained the proposals to the House of Commons. Left-wing Labor M.P.’s, some Liberal Democrats and nationalists accused the home secretary of entering a “bidding war” with the Conservatives over asylum and urged Clarke to be more positive about the benefits of immigration.

When Tory spokesman David Davis accused Clarke of responding too late to remedy a “confused, weak and chaotic” Labor policy since 1997, including 250,000 failed asylum seekers who had not been removed, Clarke said the Tory quota scheme would damage the economy and weaken human rights. He called it “Stalinist.”

Tony Blair, whose spokesman denied suggestions that No. 10 had pushed Clarke further down a hard-line road than the Home Office intended to go, gave his full support in a foreword to the five-year plan. Though Blair stressed the importance of managed migration — “essential for our continued prosperity” for centuries past — he put “rooting out abuse” at the top of his priorities and warned that cheating could be used increasingly “by extremists to promote their perverted view of race.”

Clarke said the points system would soon replace work and student permits. It would be simpler and more effective for those wishing to work in Britain, focusing on the “highly skilled migrants that can help us build our economy.”

The quota-based schemes for the low-skilled in agriculture, food processing, and the hotel and restaurant industries will be phased out “in the light of the additional labor now available from the new E.U. countries.” Last year 17,000 people from developing countries outside the E.U. came to Britain to work under such schemes.

The new regime will be accompanied by 2,000-pound, on-the-spot fines on employers who use illegal labor.

In an extra twist Monday night, the immigration minister, Des Browne, announced that immigration fees are doubling to between 300 and 500 pounds to raise 170 million pounds a year to make the migration program self-financing within three years.

Fresh pressure on ministers is expected Tuesday in a report from the Commons public accounts committee that criticized the handling of asylum cases and urged better procedures for fast-tracking them. Only 9 percent are fast-tracked in Britain, compared with 40 percent in the Netherlands.

The five-year plan heralds moves to step up the removal of failed asylum seekers, including more widespread use of detention and the introduction of tagging of asylum claimants. And the right to permanent settlement after five years in Britain will end for those granted refugee status. Their position will be reviewed after they have been in the country for five years.

The Refugee Council and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants questioned how the measure would enable them to develop a commitment to British society.

: More Michael White

- 0Comments
- Permalink
- Print
- Short URL
Share:
- Email
- Twitter
- Facebook
- LinkedIn
- Digg
- Reddit
- StumbleUpon
- ShareThis

Unlawful discrimination

Britain's highest court rules that the unlimited detention of foreign terror suspects is "the real threat to the life of the nation."

By Clare Dyer, Michael White and Alan Travis

A scathing judgment by the House of Lords, Britain’s highest court, condemning the indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects as a threat to the life of the nation left anti-terrorist laws in tatters Thursday. The ruling by an 8-1 majority held that the indefinite detention without trial at Belmarsh and Woodhill high-security prisons was unlawful under the European Convention on Human Rights. Constitutional lawyers called it one of the most important decisions from Britain’s highest court in 50 years.

But 24 hours after David Blunkett, the law’s sponsor, was forced to resign as home secretary, Downing Street and the new home secretary, Charles Clarke, decided to tough it out. They said they would study the judgment, but made it plain they are more likely to renew the controversial laws than modify them. Lord Hoffmann ruled that there is no “state of public emergency threatening the life of the nation” — the only basis on which Britain is entitled to exercise its opt-out from Article 5 of the European Convention, the right to liberty. It was the anti-terror laws introduced by Blunkett that posed a threat, he declared. “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.”

The judgment adds to the clutch of election-sensitive law-and-order problems in Clarke’s in box. No. 10 signaled it is “clearly minded to renew it,” and Clarke chose to stress continuity with Blunkett’s policies.

On Channel 4 News Hazel Blears, the police minister, said judges who authorized detentions had seen intelligence data that the law lords did not. “This is a matter for Parliament to decide” in line with the European Convention. “Our overriding concern is the protection of this nation.”

Sixteen Muslims have been detained under the anti-terror legislation, with 10 still held in Belmarsh, southeast London, and Woodhill, Bucks, and one in Broadmoor mental hospital. They are certified as “suspected international terrorists.”

The law lords’ ruling said the state should decide whether a state of emergency existed. But they argued that the government’s response breached the human rights convention because it went further than required. It was a disproportionate interference with liberty and equality and unlawfully discriminated against foreigners because British terror suspects thought to pose a similar risk cannot be locked up without charge or trial.

Lord Scott described the regime under which suspects can be detained indefinitely on the say-so of the home secretary with no right to know the grounds for detention as “the stuff of nightmares, associated with France before and during the revolution, with Soviet Russia in the Stalinist era, and now associated, as a result of Section 23 of the 2001 Act, with the United Kingdom.”

The judgment does not oblige the government to release the detainees immediately, but under the Human Rights Act the government must take steps soon to remedy the situation. These could include legislation — for example, making evidence obtained from telephone tapping admissible in a criminal court — that would make it easier to try detainees. Another option would be measures allowing them to be released under constant surveillance and monitoring.

Clarke is expected to produce new proposals in the new year, and until then the detainees will remain in Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons. Gareth Peirce, solicitor for eight detainees, commented: “The government has to take steps to withdraw the legislation and release the detainees.”

The judgment puts Clark under huge pressure to devise a solution or face the prospect of more embarrassing court defeats in the run-up to the general election. The detainees’ solicitors could take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, if the government drags its heels. Lawyers said another possibility was an application in the English courts for a declaration that it was unconstitutional for the home secretary to continue to detain the men in breach of a House of Lords ruling.

The case was heard by an almost unprecedented panel of nine law lords, instead of the usual five, because of its constitutional significance. The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, who argued the case for the government, had tried to persuade the judges that they were “undemocratic” and should defer to the will of elected representatives.

Jeffrey Jowell, professor of public law at University College London, said: “It establishes that, even where the government claims national security is an issue, the court has authority to delineate the proper boundaries of a rights-based democracy.”

: More Clare Dyer
: More Michael White

- 0Comments
- Permalink
- Print
- Short URL
Share:
- Email
- Twitter
- Facebook
- LinkedIn
- Digg
- Reddit
- StumbleUpon
- ShareThis

Poll: Blair should not step down

On the British prime minister's 10th anniversary as Labour leader, his public sees him as competent enough to stay -- for now.

By Alan Travis and Michael White

On the eve of the 10th anniversary of Tony Blair’s leadership of the Labour party tomorrow, voters have a largely negative view of the prime minister but still see him as competent and experienced.

Today’s Guardian/ICM poll to mark the day Mr Blair was confirmed as John Smith’s successor uncovers a sense among voters that the Blair era will come to a close some time after next year’s general election.

But most of the electorate does not want him to step down just yet. The Tories are nowhere, Michael Howard is slipping back, losing ground to Charles Kennedy’s Liberal Democrats.

Before today’s debate on the Butler inquiry, the July Guardian/ICM opinion poll also shows that a clear majority of voters 55% believes that Mr Blair lied over Iraq.

Opposition to the war has jumped 13 points in Britain in the last two months; 56% say it was unjustified the highest level recorded on the ICM war tracker.

As Mr Blair squares up to fight off yet another assault on his handling of Iraq in the Commons this afternoon, the voters see life in Britain as no fairer than it was and see him as a leader who has broken his 1997 campaign promise to govern “in the interests of the many and not the few.”

Although a clear majority regards Mr Blair as their premier of choice, they also see him as arrogant, dishonest and “too presidential.”

That is a significant perception. Mr Blair is not the first prime minister to be so described. Margaret Thatcher and Harold Wilson were too. But the age of 24/7 TV news magnifies a leader’s power and faults.

Although Tory and Liberal Democrat voters, egged on by the anti-Blair media on both left and right, understandably want him to go before the next general election, the centre of gravity of opinion among Labour voters appears to be that he should stand down some time after next year’s general election.

This is a significantly shorter timescale than they were prepared to contemplate in May, when 48% said he should go on until the general election after next. Voters are getting used to the idea of Life After Blair, but are slow to adapt to the Brown Era. The chancellor looks likely to have to be patient a little longer. Michael Howard looks like waiting for ever.

Mr Blair can take some comfort in the fact that he still retains strong personal support among Labour’s core vote: 67% still regard him as “honest” and “trustworthy” and do not want him to step down before the next election.

As Mr Blair enters his eighth year in power, Labour still retains an election-winning five-point lead over the Tories on this month’s ICM’s voting intention question.

Mr Howard has a minus-8 points approval rating on this month’s poll. The Conservatives had only 30% of the vote. The alternative parties who are exciting voters are the Liberal Democrats, who in the wake of their byelection triumphs are up three points to 25% this month, and the Greens and Ukip, who both take a 3% share of the vote.

Mr Blair may feel that it is his personal political reputation rather than that of the Labour party which has suffered most from the continuing row over the Iraq war. This month’s poll provides further fuel for that analysis, as it shows that Gordon Brown would more than double Labour’s lead to 11 points over the Tories if he were Labour leader.

The detailed ICM poll find ings show that Mr Blair’s personal rating remains firmly in the doldrums at minus-22 points. Only 36% of voters are satisfied with his performance as prime minister, while 58% are unhappy. Among Labour voters 77% give him their approval, but his overall rating has now been bouncing along the bottom of the graph since the Iraq war.

Despite “four inquiries and no funeral,” a clear majority of voters, 55% now believe that Mr Blair did lie over the war. Those who believe it was not justified rose from 43% in May to 56% this month. Support for the invasion has fallen over the same period from 44% to 38%. Among Labour voters 58% say they still support the war and 38% are opposed. Those opposed are mainly Conservative and Liberal Democrat voters.

The decline in Mr Blair’s personal standing is clearly shown. In 1997 only 21% regarded him as arrogant; 65% felt he was in tune with them; 80% felt he had “lots of personality”; and 57% felt he was tough. Now 52% regard him as arrogant; only 37% believe he is in tune with them; and 54% say he is full of personality.

Only a year ago, 49% believed he was honest a rating that has fallen to only 37% today. The voters are not all unkind to him. More than 70% now regard him as “experienced” and more interestingly 57% say that he is “competent” up from 52% a year ago.

As for the longer view, the voters were asked by ICM to make a judgment about whether Britain has become a fairer country in the 10 years since he became the Labour party leader. Only 22% of all voters said they believed Britain was a “fairer” place, and surprisingly only 43% of Labour voters made the same judgment. More than a third of all voters, 38%, said they believed life in Britain has actu ally become less fair, including 15% of all Labour voters. The rest depressingly felt there had been no change over the last decade, including 38% of Labour voters.

Similarly, when voters were asked whether Mr Blair had achieved his promise to act “in the interests of the many, not the few”, 64% of all voters said they believed he had failed to do this.

Loyally, 68% of Labour voters felt he had achieved that aim, but even among the government’s supporters, 31% felt he had failed.

As to the state of the Labour party itself the popular view shared by 66% of voters is that it is less in touch with “people like me” than it was 10 years ago. Only 27% believe it is more in tune with the country than when Mr Blair was elected leader on July 21 1994.

ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,007 adults aged 18 and over by telephone between July 16 18, 2004. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults.