Poll: Which Prime Minister does the UK prefer?

[imnot]

Harold Saxon, Prime Minister.

I agree.

 

[PaintyFace]

As an American, I'm curious. Which PM do the UK escapists prefer?

Where's the "I hate our messed up government" option? I believe a lot of Brits feel that way about our politicians from the last few years.

 

[Jon Shannow]

Brown was a bit like a drunk trying to get home from the pub, stumbling around bumping into things and occasionally puking.
Whereas Cameron talks to you on his way home, assuring you things will be okay. And then pissing on your back as you walk away.
Personally I say we sacrifice both of them to the gods and bring back Pitt the Younger

 

[Vault Girl]

I hate David Cameron with a passion for so many reasons. Whatever voodoo he incited to get the nation to vote for him is completely beyond me. But Gordon Brown got us in this mess with most of his own undoing, so no matter how much Cameron and the conservatives offend every particle of my being i have to say Gordon was crap.

Didn't vote by the way because just because i think brown was worse doesnt mean i'm going to let cameron win anything, not even an escapist poll, while i can help it.

Cameron has made it impossible for me to attend university if i dont get in this year. Dick.

 

[Jonesy911]

Under Gordon Brown I received E.M.A.(education maintenance allowance). For a poor family £30 a week is a big deal. Also, my mum was able to land a job teaching at a museum an pay for our bills.


When David Cameron came into power he cut funding to museums and my Mum lost her job, to add insult to injury he also fucked me out of my E.M.A. so now my only source of money is my Saturday job.

DAVID CAMERON IS A FUCKING EVIL BASTARD. HE STEALS FROM THE POOR AND GIVES TO THE RICH

EDIT: I'm not saying Gordon Brown is the best PM we've ever had, he's far from it. But god damn at least he wasn't a Nega-Robin Hood

 

[Vault Girl]

Our MPs have proven to buy things like Hotel charged porn and duck houses for ponds, their not even good at being corrupt anyway

 

[Rakkana]

They're all gits.

Making bad choices left and right.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

They're both useless, pedantic fools without the faintest idea of how to run a country efficiently. Gordon Brown at least managed be incompetent fairly and made sure public services existed. I really despise Cameron. I don't like a single candidate from any major party or most of the minor. I only say most because I don't know every fringe party leader.

From the three depressingly inevitable choices, I want to see the Liberal Democrats take charge independently. I still believe they are the best hope we have for a progressive government, that acknowledges the most important aspects of society as what they are, and won't indulge personal ideologies. This pact with the conservatives has discredited them, I fear, beyond repair.

I certainly feel my vote was abused :/

 

[FallenRainbows]

As it so happens; I'm a fascist. So neither, would be rather grand.

But must I choose? Cameron I guess, most of the hate is directed at him due to the university thing, and well, not that big of a deal. Hell it make sit easier for most people to go. If you want a long winded explanation, feel free to ask.

That, and Gordon Brown was about as effectual as a horse with no legs running the Grand National.

Cameron is about as effectual as horse with one leg running the Grand National, lesser of two evils.

Also...

Harold Saxon, Prime Minister.

I agree.

FUCKING. YES

 

[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?

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.

In Political Science Legitimacy is defined simply as 'rightfulness'. The terminology used to describe it may change but the overall definition of it maintains relatively constant.

Even if we were to take the idea that Legitimacy is subjective, I would argue that the overall population of the UK has the same definition as to what Legitimacy of government is. I would also argue that anyone who believes that the Conservatives can't legitimately form a government because 64% didn't vote for them is either a hypocrite or has never accepted any government in modern British history as legitimate.

Finally, even if we were to agree that the Conservatives cannot legitimately form a government, it could then be argued that they have the highest claim to legitimacy among all the parties as they received the most votes.

In essence, you can try and be as pedantic as you want by saying legitimacy is relative and 64% voted for another party, but the coalition government is accepted as legitimate by the overwhelming amount of people in the UK. Even if we were to take your stance that the coalition government is not legitimate, they are still more legitimate than a Labour-Lib Dem coalition would be.

 

[JasonKaotic]

Neither, they're both cocks.
But I guess that wrinkly old scrotum Brown didn't trash the country as much as Cameron, so I'll vote Brown.

 

[metalmanky306]

David Cameron. Much more level headed and at least he's shown the ability to think things through properly.

PAH! do you see what that SOB is doing to the education system?! i don't think i'm even gonna try getting into uni now it's gonna be so pointlessly difficult!

 

[Azure-Supernova]

David Cameron. Much more level headed and at least he's shown the ability to think things through properly.

PAH! do you see what that SOB is doing to the education system?! i don't think i'm even gonna try getting into uni now it's gonna be so pointlessly difficult!

That's what student loans are for my friend. It's only going to be pointlessly difficult for people going to University for jobs that don't need a University degree. If you can get a student loan then chances are you're getting a qualification that will hopefully you to a 20+k a year job.

 

[FallenRainbows]

David Cameron. Much more level headed and at least he's shown the ability to think things through properly.

PAH! do you see what that SOB is doing to the education system?! i don't think i'm even gonna try getting into uni now it's gonna be so pointlessly difficult!

You didn't ask, but hey.


Bare in mind this was written at the time that it was all in the news.


Finally found the actual polices regarding the tuition fees increase, to be rather blunt, there is a lot of fuss about very little. The worst affected will be people who have a family income of over £42000 as they will receive no grant. Under £25000 you will in fact be eligible for a larger maintenance grant of up to £3250. The way that you pay back the loan has changed, it is fairer, and you used to pay back after earning over £19000 when as now it has risen to £21000. People earning £21000 to £41000 pay back an interest of up to 3% above the RPI. Earning over £41000 you will pay the full 3% over the RPI. Rises in most universities reach £6000 up from the current £3000 only elite universities (oxford and the like) reach the £9000 and must use the extra money to provide better services and fair access. The rises are down to individual universities all may keep prices at £3000 should they wish. Part-time students no longer have to pay upfront fees and in fact are entitled to the same loans as full time students (with no grants). Students from poorer backgrounds are in fact eligible for a new £150m scholarship scheme, and may receive benefits such as a free foundation year, students working away from home will also receive more financial aid (as will those in London) See http://www.bis.gov.uk/studentfinance for the source, and also http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/s/10-1208-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-report.pdf for the full Browne review (the one that caused the reforms) http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/s/10-1208es-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-report-summary.pdf (for the summary of said review).

If any information is incorrect please correct me, I'm not one to stand up for democracy, but I like to know what is going on, and thought you might too. The media has been fairly sensationalist as I have yet to see a proper discussion on the specifics discussed. (Feel free to add to this)

 

[Hgame]

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..

I accept your point, however even if you only count the people who did vote, 64% did not want the Tories.

 

[moose_man]

Harold Saxon, Prime Minister.

I agree.

He's just so AGREEABLE.


papapaPAT

 

[Calcium]

I'm going to make this my last post hopefully and give up. Let's clear some things up first.

Firstly before anything else, to suggest you were a Conservative was a bit below the belt. I regret it and apologise. Now onto your response...

In Political Science Legitimacy is defined simply as 'rightfulness'. The terminology used to describe it may change but the overall definition of it maintains relatively constant.

You're taking the definition of Legitimacy to be Rightfulness. This doesn't make it any less subjective as far as I'm concerned. Also note that all three major parties were promising some kind of electoral reform, suggesting that even they realise there is something wrong with our electoral system. I'd be inclined to agree with this myself, and it was part of the reason I voted for the Lib Dems as I thought they would be most serious about electoral reform.

Even if we were to take the idea that Legitimacy is subjective, I would argue that the overall population of the UK has the same definition as to what Legitimacy of government is. I would also argue that anyone who believes that the Conservatives can't legitimately form a government because 64% didn't vote for them is either a hypocrite or has never accepted any government in modern British history as legitimate.

I do believe the Conservatives can form a legitimate government so I won't comment further on this paragraph. Although you do make an interesting point that I shall return to...

Finally, even if we were to agree that the Conservatives cannot legitimately form a government, it could then be argued that they have the highest claim to legitimacy among all the parties as they received the most votes.

It would be strange if we did agree seeing as neither of us has that opinion.

In essence, you can try and be as pedantic as you want by saying legitimacy is relative and 64% voted for another party, but the coalition government is accepted as legitimate by the overwhelming amount of people in the UK. Even if we were to take your stance that the coalition government is not legitimate they are still more legitimate than a Labour-Lib Dem coalition would be.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! This is not my stance. You are the one with the view that a coalition of Labour/Lib Dems (52% of vote) would be unacceptable compared with the current Conservative/Lib Dems coaltion (59% of vote). It was one of the reasons I quoted you in the first place. I don't agree that to say one majority is illegitimate whilst the other is legitimate. It is perhaps LESS legitimate but it is not unacceptable as you suggest.

Now returning to that point: you said it would be hypocritical to say the Conservatives couldn't form a government because 64% didn't vote for them. I assume then that you should feel the same way for Labour were 71% didn't vote for them. It would seem both hypocritical and biased to say that the Conservatives can but Labour can't when in a coaltion with the Lib Dems they both have a majority government.

Also I would say my figures from this post come from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/

I would be interested in discussing further, but I've spent far too long on this topic in order to avoid my coursework. Damned Situation Calculus will be keeping me up most of the night now. Yes even the definition of legitimacy is more entertaining that Situation Calculus. =(

 

[FarleShadow]

Under Gordon Brown I received E.M.A.(education maintenance allowance). For a poor family £30 a week is a big deal. Also, my mum was able to land a job teaching at a museum an pay for our bills.


When David Cameron came into power he cut funding to museums and my Mum lost her job, to add insult to injury he also fucked me out of my E.M.A. so now my only source of money is my Saturday job.

DAVID CAMERON IS A FUCKING EVIL BASTARD. HE STEALS FROM THE POOR AND GIVES TO THE RICH

EDIT: I'm not saying Gordon Brown is the best PM we've ever had, he's far from it. But god damn at least he wasn't a Nega-Robin Hood

Whoa! Talk about a labour kid!

Jonesy911, have you ever considered the purpose of EMA or, indeed, why these cuts are needed?

No. Because nobody who hates tories with a passion ever does. (Here's a hint: The reason the tories immediately start cutting everything is because LABOUR SPENDS ALL THE MONEY ON STUPID SHIT LIKE E.M.A. AND BANKRUPTED THE COUNTRY). Everyone is still paying the same amount of tax, nobody is getting a tax break and gov. spending is getting cut. This is not 'Robbing the poor to feed the rich', this is 'Oh shit, we're out of money, cut everything and get hated becaues Labour's economics is 'Spend everyone elses' money until there isn't any left''

Use your damn brain for once.