It’s less unpopular than Iraq as well, though. I think there’s a kind of weariness with military adventures, rather than the polarised support/ opposition we saw over Iraq. Folk are just fed up.

It is interesting that the YouGov and ComRes polls have opposite outcomes, particularly as (to paraphrase the UK Polling Report commentary) the ComRes one specifically mentions Gadaffi, whilst the YouGov one doesn’t, and for Iraq polls that mentioned ousting Saddam always returned higher %’s in favour of intervention than those which didn’t. The ComRes poll also only talks about a UK attack on Libya, whereas the YouGov talks about a joint US, French and UK attack.

…all of which findings quite patently say more about Iraq than they do about Libya, and more about Blair than Cameron.

I see that the ‘civilians near military targets’ theme has re-emerged. But most/all military facilities are near centres of population because they require civilian workers to service them.

No sign of any television stations or the Chinese Embassy being bombed yet though!

This whole sad showing of the coalition’s policy in Libya is increasingly looking like a very sick piece of political theatre.

They can’t agree on who or what is to run the show.

They can’t agree on whether targeting Gaddafi is ruled out by the UN Security Council resolution 1973 or not.

The British government is ambivalent about putting in ground troops in the guise of special forces.

They have no idea about what would constitute the endgame when the bombing has to stop or what is to happen after that.

The government’s new found “humanitarian concerns” are strictly for export to Libya and don’t extend to the killing of scores of civil demonstrators in Bahrain and the Yemen and certainly not to the closure of council care homes for the aged in Britain.