Poll: Which Prime Minister does the UK prefer?

[WolfLordAndy]

I went with Cameron, as the lesser of two evils.

Gordon Brown became PM without being voted in... he also sold off Britain's Gold reserves when it was at its lowest market price for quite some time.

While he was PM he floundered around doing nothing much.

While I'm not a fan of Tories, and have become somewhat dissillusioned with the LibDem, I don't want another labour government anytime soon, they've managed to fuck Britain up something fiece, and while the coelition is making harsh choices, they need to be made, least the whole country becomes bankrupt like Ireland, Greece, Spain or Iceland...

 

[Puzzlenaut]

Ignorant fools will say "Oh but Gordon Brown was just AWFUL". The problem is, they can never back up this claim -- ask these people for one single things Gordon Brown did wrong and the best you'll get is "he called some woman* a bigot once".
Things Gordon Brown actually did wrong are sell off our gold too early. The deficit "problems" for the most part weren't really problems -- it was classic Keynesian economics in action, and most of that had been built up by the previous labour government.

Our beloved CURRENT prime minister, on the other hand, has slashed everything brutally, but not in the way that Thatcher did where the useless, over-funded parts were the first to go, but in an stupid way in which entire departments are straight up closed down whilst everybody is straight up terrified of cutting either the police or the NHS when it needs to be fucking done.

I will admit that in terms of cutting those two services, Cameron is pretty limited unless he wants to commit political suicide, but couldn't he just spin it onto the libdems like they have every other shit thing the current government has done?

In short:
They were both pretty average, Cameron just seems much more annoying as a person (hold up with the makeup there, Eton boy!)


*a rather bigoted woman

 

[Calcium]

But the UK voted cameron, and now they deserve it, maybe this will be a good lesson for them about voting tory.

The irony being... we didn't vote him in, we didn't vote anyone in. They just decided amongst themselves that 'hey, LibDems, your leader's pretty good looking, let's get a room.'

'We' didn't 'vote' Cameron to do anything.

Ya know, I'm not the biggest Cameron fan in the world, but this is a really weak argument. No party managed to achieve a majority, but the Conservatives got the highest amount of votes. Labour managing to get into power despite losing against the Conservatives in the election would of been a serious blow to democracy.

The Lib Dems are in the cabinet and they came THIRD. The outcome was no winners, yet two losers got in.

Parties tend to join up in a coalition...Tell me, what do you suggest should of happened instead?

Policy wise it was reported at the time that the Lib Dems were closer to Labour than the Conservatives. All I'm saying is that if you call the idea of Labour gaining power after getting second most votes, you should be disgusted that a party that did even worse holds some power.

If Labour managed to get power through a coalition, I don't see how that's worse than the Conservatives managing to get it from a coalition.

Clegg openly stated before the election that if a coalition was essential, than he would form one with the party that received the most votes. The Lib Dems may have receieved the third highest amount of votes but they were invited to form a government by the party that received the most amount of votes. They did not form the government themselves and ultimately the Conservatives hold ultimate power.

If the Lib Dems had formed a coalition with Labour than they would of been invited to form a government with a party that holds no legitimate power. Big difference.

Legitimate power would be when a party gets a majority; no party did.

I voted Lib Dem, I'm guessing you voted Conservative as you seem to be suggesting it's okay they didn't win but got power, yet if another party that didn't win got power then that would be unacceptable.

 

[TheHappySquid]

What, no Disraeli option?

 

[CrystalShadow]

But meanwhile, Gordon Brown was in fact only the 2nd prime minister the country has ever had who is from a lower class background...

Not mentioning who the other was though! That always shocks a few people.

Brown I consider to be a bit of a fool and unsuited for the job, but I'll freely admit Blair gets most of my real wrath! Brown's mistakes as Chancellor were only allowed by Blair.

Funnily enough, if you read Clegg's, Blair's and Cameron's lives prior to politics they're basically interchangeable. Taught at private schools, Oxbridge degrees in humanities subjects and basically groomed for politics.

Ramsay McDonald? XD

I think I know who you mean though. Margaret Thatcher was 'middle class' technically, but another prominent factor in our politicians is how many of them went to Oxford. (and often Eton prior to that),
Which puts Margaret Thatcher firmly back in the group of 'typical' politicians.

Gordon Brown however, did not study at Oxford, and definitely does not seem to have a background and educational history typical of just about every other politician.

 

[Lethos]

But the UK voted cameron, and now they deserve it, maybe this will be a good lesson for them about voting tory.

The irony being... we didn't vote him in, we didn't vote anyone in. They just decided amongst themselves that 'hey, LibDems, your leader's pretty good looking, let's get a room.'

'We' didn't 'vote' Cameron to do anything.

Ya know, I'm not the biggest Cameron fan in the world, but this is a really weak argument. No party managed to achieve a majority, but the Conservatives got the highest amount of votes. Labour managing to get into power despite losing against the Conservatives in the election would of been a serious blow to democracy.

The Lib Dems are in the cabinet and they came THIRD. The outcome was no winners, yet two losers got in.

Parties tend to join up in a coalition...Tell me, what do you suggest should of happened instead?

Policy wise it was reported at the time that the Lib Dems were closer to Labour than the Conservatives. All I'm saying is that if you call the idea of Labour gaining power after getting second most votes, you should be disgusted that a party that did even worse holds some power.

If Labour managed to get power through a coalition, I don't see how that's worse than the Conservatives managing to get it from a coalition.

Clegg openly stated before the election that if a coalition was essential, than he would form one with the party that received the most votes. The Lib Dems may have receieved the third highest amount of votes but they were invited to form a government by the party that received the most amount of votes. They did not form the government themselves and ultimately the Conservatives hold ultimate power.

If the Lib Dems had formed a coalition with Labour than they would of been invited to form a government with a party that holds no legitimate power. Big difference.

Legitimate power would be when a party gets a majority; no party did.

I voted Lib Dem, I'm guessing you voted Conservative as you seem to be suggesting it's okay they didn't win but got power, yet if another party that didn't win got power then that would be unacceptable.

Lib Dem here, not Tory.
This was actually a nice little debate till you started trying to twist my words. Legitimacy is the principle that people respect and follow the laws set by a government that is elected out of duty and respect, not fear. Seeming as the overwhelming majority of people in the UK accept that the coalition is in power, they are legitimate. If Labour had formed government with the Lib Dems than their laws would be less legitimate as people who voted Conservative and saw that the Tories got the most votes, would be less inclined to respect their government.

 

[Private Custard]

Brown, he was a good chancellor

Haaaa Haaaaaa, Oh.....wait, you weren't joking??

Look up Gordon Browns gold reserves sale (and the resulting fail) for a start!

 

[Sensenmann]

Both of them are pretty bad. Brown sold all our gold, bullied his staff and made stupid suggestions. Cameron is breaking all of his election promises and doing the same things which made the British post-WWI depression worse.

 

[Lord Kloo]

Well TBH I'm going to have to go with Clement Atlee because he and his government built the welfare state, but as he's not on the list I'll just vote Cameron..

Why? Because although Brown did pick up the worst parts of Labour's tail end.. he did make many stupid mistakes in his first few months, he failed on the Northern Rock and banking crisis which he should have foreseen coming as Chancellor and his only reputation for being a robust chancellor was destroyed.. However brown was only a PR nightmare and so that is why we all have a negative view of him mostly.. he didn't actually do much in his time otherwise..

Cameron on the other hand I have yet to see, he has bad press so far purely for being Tory but there's nothing wrong with that, also on the Student Fees thingy.. although the pricing went up we students still don't pay anymore per month than we would have done before, and they wipe the slate clean after some time so its much better.. However Clegg is a bit of a basterd for saying he wouldn't raise tuition fees, though he does have to agree with Cameron otherwise it would have caused a 2nd General Election..

Rant over.. so far Cameron's okay, but if he introduces his stupid 'British Bill of Rights' my vote will change to Brown..

 

[Calcium]

But the UK voted cameron, and now they deserve it, maybe this will be a good lesson for them about voting tory.

The irony being... we didn't vote him in, we didn't vote anyone in. They just decided amongst themselves that 'hey, LibDems, your leader's pretty good looking, let's get a room.'

'We' didn't 'vote' Cameron to do anything.

Ya know, I'm not the biggest Cameron fan in the world, but this is a really weak argument. No party managed to achieve a majority, but the Conservatives got the highest amount of votes. Labour managing to get into power despite losing against the Conservatives in the election would of been a serious blow to democracy.

The Lib Dems are in the cabinet and they came THIRD. The outcome was no winners, yet two losers got in.

Parties tend to join up in a coalition...Tell me, what do you suggest should of happened instead?

Policy wise it was reported at the time that the Lib Dems were closer to Labour than the Conservatives. All I'm saying is that if you call the idea of Labour gaining power after getting second most votes, you should be disgusted that a party that did even worse holds some power.

If Labour managed to get power through a coalition, I don't see how that's worse than the Conservatives managing to get it from a coalition.

Clegg openly stated before the election that if a coalition was essential, than he would form one with the party that received the most votes. The Lib Dems may have receieved the third highest amount of votes but they were invited to form a government by the party that received the most amount of votes. They did not form the government themselves and ultimately the Conservatives hold ultimate power.

If the Lib Dems had formed a coalition with Labour than they would of been invited to form a government with a party that holds no legitimate power. Big difference.

Legitimate power would be when a party gets a majority; no party did.

I voted Lib Dem, I'm guessing you voted Conservative as you seem to be suggesting it's okay they didn't win but got power, yet if another party that didn't win got power then that would be unacceptable.

Lib Dem here, not Tory.
This was actually a nice little debate till you started trying to twist my words. Legitimacy is the principle that people respect and follow the laws set by a government that is elected out of duty and respect, not fear. Seeming as the overwhelming majority of people in the UK accept that the coalition is in power, they are legitimate. If Labour had formed government with the Lib Dems than their laws would be less legitimate as people who voted Conservative and saw that the Tories got the most votes, would be less inclined to respect their government.

I'm not trying to twist your words, but someone who makes little quips like "Big difference" after making a subjective point on what they define as "legitimate" I have trouble taking seriously.

If you had been Conservative I would have understood your bias of Con-Dem being acceptable whilst Lib-Lab being unacceptable. The Conservatives got the most votes for, but in the vast majority of polls asking "which of the three parties would you not want to see in power" Conservatives "won" most of them. The Conservatives polarise opinion. They got the most votes for but also the most people didn't want them. That in a way makes them slightly "unlegitimate" in the same way that if they weren't in power any other parties would be unlegitimate. I don't think either outcome did/would have lead to a fully legitimate government, hence my point on the only legitimate goverment being one with a majority vote.

Legitimacy is a subjective idea depending on which criteria the individual wishes to base it upon.

 

[Lord Kloo]

Brown.
But the UK voted cameron, and now they deserve it, maybe this will be a good lesson for them about voting tory.

But that's the thing, we didn't vote Cameron. 36% of the turnout voted Cameron, when you factor in the turnout only 23% of the people eligible to vote voted for the Tories. If you count the whole country, only 17% of the population of the UK decided they wanted the Conservatives.

Sorry to but in like this but thats kind of twisting numbers, my view is if you don't vote you generally won't be counted as not voting for the tories.. I'm just saying..

 

[BlueberryMUNCH]

As much as I hate to say it, Brown. I didn't think things could get much worse but hey, they did. I'd personally prefer the Monster Raving Looneys right about now...

See, part of me wants to say this...but I just...I can't.

Brown was a total fucking joke...and Cameron is just...*sigh*.

So honestly, I can honestly say I don't prefer either of them. I hate them both.

But hmm. I suppose I hate Cameron more...but that doesn't mean I prefer Brown. Ugh.

 

[Lethos]

But the UK voted cameron, and now they deserve it, maybe this will be a good lesson for them about voting tory.

The irony being... we didn't vote him in, we didn't vote anyone in. They just decided amongst themselves that 'hey, LibDems, your leader's pretty good looking, let's get a room.'

'We' didn't 'vote' Cameron to do anything.

Ya know, I'm not the biggest Cameron fan in the world, but this is a really weak argument. No party managed to achieve a majority, but the Conservatives got the highest amount of votes. Labour managing to get into power despite losing against the Conservatives in the election would of been a serious blow to democracy.

The Lib Dems are in the cabinet and they came THIRD. The outcome was no winners, yet two losers got in.

Parties tend to join up in a coalition...Tell me, what do you suggest should of happened instead?

Policy wise it was reported at the time that the Lib Dems were closer to Labour than the Conservatives. All I'm saying is that if you call the idea of Labour gaining power after getting second most votes, you should be disgusted that a party that did even worse holds some power.

If Labour managed to get power through a coalition, I don't see how that's worse than the Conservatives managing to get it from a coalition.

Clegg openly stated before the election that if a coalition was essential, than he would form one with the party that received the most votes. The Lib Dems may have receieved the third highest amount of votes but they were invited to form a government by the party that received the most amount of votes. They did not form the government themselves and ultimately the Conservatives hold ultimate power.

If the Lib Dems had formed a coalition with Labour than they would of been invited to form a government with a party that holds no legitimate power. Big difference.

Legitimate power would be when a party gets a majority; no party did.

I voted Lib Dem, I'm guessing you voted Conservative as you seem to be suggesting it's okay they didn't win but got power, yet if another party that didn't win got power then that would be unacceptable.

Lib Dem here, not Tory.
This was actually a nice little debate till you started trying to twist my words. Legitimacy is the principle that people respect and follow the laws set by a government that is elected out of duty and respect, not fear. Seeming as the overwhelming majority of people in the UK accept that the coalition is in power, they are legitimate. If Labour had formed government with the Lib Dems than their laws would be less legitimate as people who voted Conservative and saw that the Tories got the most votes, would be less inclined to respect their government.

I'm not trying to twist your words, but someone who makes little quips like "Big difference" after making a subjective point on what they define as "legitimate" I have trouble taking seriously.

If you had been Conservative I would have understood your bias of Con-Dem being acceptable whilst Lib-Lab being unacceptable. The Conservatives got the most votes for, but in the vast majority of polls asking "which of the three parties would you not want to see in power" Conservatives "won" most of them. The Conservatives polarise opinion. They got the most votes for but also the most people didn't want them. That in a way makes them slightly "unlegitimate" in the same way that if they weren't in power any other parties would be unlegitimate. I don't think either outcome did/would have lead to a fully legitimate government, hence my point on the only legitimate goverment being one with a majority vote.

Legitimacy is a subjective idea depending on which criteria the individual wishes to base it upon.

Saying that whilst the Tories got the most for them but also against them is a moot point. You don't vote against a party in elections, you vote for a party. It is irrelevant if the Tories polarise opinions, they got the most votes so therefore have the most legitimacy to form a government. If we could argue that people vote against parties when they vote then no party would ever be legitimate and our entire system would fall apart.

Also why is okay for me to agree with a Con-Dem coalition if I vote Tory, but not any other party?

 

[tigermilk]

*Sighs* Who ever you vote for the government gets in!

I liked Gordon Brown, the man was so uncofortable when dealing with people I found myself trusting him as he doesn't strike me as a paticularly good liar. That and he seemed distanced from a lot of the spin which Cameron/Bliar (sic) utilised. That and he isn't a Tory.

 

[ultimateownage]

Plus I don't want Conservatives anywhere near No.10 regardless of the situation.

Winston Churchill was a Conservative.
O.T. Brown. Brown didn't do very well, but that's because he didn't do enough; Cameron is doing too much of exactly what everyone in the UK doesn't want but the rich people.
And to people saying Cameron because we are out of money. Want to know why we are out of money? Because of all the Conservatives in power who sucked the money from the poor and all the Labours in power who just didn't make it worse instead of reversing it.

 

[Danklift]

Brown, Although I wished he'd never gone for the top job, a man with brains but no charisma has no business being a party leader in today's petty, media focused, political world, which worryingly seems to be all about people and not policies. He however did himself no favours the way he moved into power, he will be forever viewed as having no legitimacy due to not being directly elected.

I do believe he was a very intelligent, sincere and able man, who did care about what he was doing. His recovery plan was spot on and we were on our way out of recession before the May elections. His major failings were his complete lack of political charisma and his obsession with being prime minister (he was waiting a long, long time for Blair to leave).

As for his legacy as chancellor, well he made some good decisions he made some bad ones but up until the credit crisis the economy was doing very nicely, so based on the main job of the chancellor he was doing well. The gold reserve sale was a bad call and he allowed the public sector to become far to bloated and expensive. The Debt issue is overstated I think, Debt is only a problem if you can't service it and we were doing fine until the banking crisis, which was not Brown's fault in the slightest and which very few people saw coming. We are a long way from being Greece, we still have the best possible credit rating if the world viewed our debt as a liability we'd be in much more trouble.

For the opposite reasons I couldn't vote for Cameron. The man is a political light weight, who is very good at spin and very quick with the soundbites and cutting remarks that are so prevalent in modern politics, but you only have to watch the commons debates to see how useless he is when asked a difficult question. He has all the bluster and bravado of a school bully but when he's put on the spot he has no witty comeback but only sullen silence. Before he was elected his only weapon was to personally attack Brown and hang onto every little mistake that was made. Don't even get me started about the constant U-turn accusations, a politician changing his mind due to massive public and professional opposition should not be viewed as a bad thing.

I am not 100% against the current Tory governments actions but I believe they are taking some parts to far. Yes the public sector needs trimming, but don't cut the core jobs i.e. the people that are actually doing useful work in society. The benefit system does need reform but cutting to much will only turn people to lives of desperation and crime. The VAT rise wasn't terrible as it mostly hits people who can afford to pay it, people who can afford the luxuries it will have most effect on. We do need to watch them closely, I don't trust them not to cut the NHS for instance they are as prone to stealth cuts as Labour were to stealth taxes.

Personally I will also never forgive them for what they did to the railways.

I confess I voted Liberal in the last election, but I have always supported them as they were neither the tax and spend Labour party (which I disagree with) or the cut and privatise everything Tories (which I REALLY disagree with). While it does disappoint me how in bed some of them are now with the Tories at least their tax allowance policy is on the cards to come in which will give the millions of low earners in the country much needed extra cash.

Finally all the student here complaining about the tuition fee rise. Yes it does suck but please bear in mind, it can all be covered by a loan, and what a loan that is you only have to pay it back when you are earning more than £21k, which is a lot of money, the interest rates are the most favourable you will ever hope to get from any bank and no one will ever come and collect the debt if you can't pay. By the sounds of it the repayments won't be worse than what people of my generation (Uni 2003-2007) are paying, they will be longer but we're all going to be working till we die in the future anyway so don't worry! Graduates on the whole stand to earn more because of the education they receive and it is only fair they pay more as opposed to all the people who don't go and don't receive the personal benefits.

Personally I'd say, if the prospect of a very minor loan is enough to put you off pursuing a university education its probably best you don't go as you likely don't have the determination to get the most out of it. Go get a normal job and be happy.

 

[Calcium]

But the UK voted cameron, and now they deserve it, maybe this will be a good lesson for them about voting tory.

The irony being... we didn't vote him in, we didn't vote anyone in. They just decided amongst themselves that 'hey, LibDems, your leader's pretty good looking, let's get a room.'

'We' didn't 'vote' Cameron to do anything.

Ya know, I'm not the biggest Cameron fan in the world, but this is a really weak argument. No party managed to achieve a majority, but the Conservatives got the highest amount of votes. Labour managing to get into power despite losing against the Conservatives in the election would of been a serious blow to democracy.

The Lib Dems are in the cabinet and they came THIRD. The outcome was no winners, yet two losers got in.

Parties tend to join up in a coalition...Tell me, what do you suggest should of happened instead?

Policy wise it was reported at the time that the Lib Dems were closer to Labour than the Conservatives. All I'm saying is that if you call the idea of Labour gaining power after getting second most votes, you should be disgusted that a party that did even worse holds some power.

If Labour managed to get power through a coalition, I don't see how that's worse than the Conservatives managing to get it from a coalition.

Clegg openly stated before the election that if a coalition was essential, than he would form one with the party that received the most votes. The Lib Dems may have receieved the third highest amount of votes but they were invited to form a government by the party that received the most amount of votes. They did not form the government themselves and ultimately the Conservatives hold ultimate power.

If the Lib Dems had formed a coalition with Labour than they would of been invited to form a government with a party that holds no legitimate power. Big difference.

Legitimate power would be when a party gets a majority; no party did.

I voted Lib Dem, I'm guessing you voted Conservative as you seem to be suggesting it's okay they didn't win but got power, yet if another party that didn't win got power then that would be unacceptable.

Lib Dem here, not Tory.
This was actually a nice little debate till you started trying to twist my words. Legitimacy is the principle that people respect and follow the laws set by a government that is elected out of duty and respect, not fear. Seeming as the overwhelming majority of people in the UK accept that the coalition is in power, they are legitimate. If Labour had formed government with the Lib Dems than their laws would be less legitimate as people who voted Conservative and saw that the Tories got the most votes, would be less inclined to respect their government.

I'm not trying to twist your words, but someone who makes little quips like "Big difference" after making a subjective point on what they define as "legitimate" I have trouble taking seriously.

If you had been Conservative I would have understood your bias of Con-Dem being acceptable whilst Lib-Lab being unacceptable. The Conservatives got the most votes for, but in the vast majority of polls asking "which of the three parties would you not want to see in power" Conservatives "won" most of them. The Conservatives polarise opinion. They got the most votes for but also the most people didn't want them. That in a way makes them slightly "unlegitimate" in the same way that if they weren't in power any other parties would be unlegitimate. I don't think either outcome did/would have lead to a fully legitimate government, hence my point on the only legitimate goverment being one with a majority vote.

Legitimacy is a subjective idea depending on which criteria the individual wishes to base it upon.

Saying that whilst the Tories got the most for them but also against them is a moot point. You don't vote against a party in elections, you vote for a party. It is irrelevant if the Tories polarise opinions, they got the most votes so therefore have the most legitimacy to form a government. If we could argue that people vote against parties when they vote then no party would ever be legitimate and our entire system would fall apart.

Also why is okay for me to agree with a Con-Dem coalition if I vote Tory, but not any other party?

It's not a moot point, it's an example of one view of legitimacy. Also there's a difference between not liking a party and not seeing it as legitimate. A lot of people don't like the current goverment but recognise it, and if the outcome had been different there would be people who didn't like it but for the majority I assume would recognise it. But we could both sit around having a "crystal ball" fight of what if's for eternity.

Now legitimacy; some people thought Gordon Brown was an illegitimate prime minister as he wasn't elected by the public, despite the fact I would argue politics is about parties not individuals and the figurehead of each party is basically a target of hate for the parties actions in much the same way managers of football teams get blamed for the players messing up.

People who viewed Gordon Brown as illegitimate arn't wrong, they just have a different view of legitimacy. My view on legitimacy is equally, neither correct nor incorrect.

Some people say no party won in the elections as there was no majority. Other people think that the Conservatives won when 64%(?) didn't vote for them. Again neither view is correct, just a subjective view down to the individual.

I don't mean that it's okay, more the fact that I would understand someone arguing that a Con-Something coalition is preferable to a Something-Something coalition if they voted for Conservative.

(Sorry to "SckizoBoy" and "this isnt my name" if you keep getting quoted. It's gotten rather too complicated for me to try to trim it down.)

Also: going offline/in bath so won't be replying.

 

[Continuity]

The best Prime Minister England ever had is Lord Palmerston!

Lies, it was obviously Winston Churchill.

Aww come on, Gladstone obviously.

 

[Lawyer105]

As much as I dislike the elitism snobbery of the Conservatives (no matter how much they try to cover it up ) I have to go with David Cameron as well...

Labour has repeatedly and deliberately run the country into the ground. Conservatives get elected to clean up the mess, implement hard, unpopular policies to turn things around, get voted out at the next election, Labour collects all the credit.

Sure... it's a simplification. But that's pretty much what it comes down to.

So yeah. Cameron pwnt Brown.

 

[moose_man]

Harold Saxon, Prime Minister.