Poll: Which Prime Minister does the UK prefer?

Recommended Videos

SckizoBoy

Ineptly Chaotic
Legacy
Jan 6, 2011
8,678
200
68
A Hermit's Cave
Blizzarded Soul said:
Rutkowski said:
Winston Churchill was a twat that was directly responsible for thousands of unneccessary deaths because he was a stubborn idiot that wouldn't let the military do military stuff instead of poking his nose where it wasn't neccessary.
Sorry but no. Unneccessary deaths? The british army was being slaughtered on the beaches of Dunkirk because they couldnt react to the Germans 'Blitzkreig' warfare. It was devastating as it had never been done before. If your talking about the Blitz, again not unneccessary deaths we needed those years to build up our forces and armaments to take back France, why you ask? Because it was a frigging fortress thanks to German efficiency.
See you're both right... but I blame Winston Churchill for the Dresden disaster (so yes, he did cause a lot of unnecessary deaths, albeit German deaths, and on principle I disagree with strategic bombing as a viable method).

However, one thing: Winston Churchill ordered the combat engagement of all German planes bearing the Int'l Red Cross, almost without prior justification (there was some evidence, but I can't remember but I do recall that it was ridiculously petty). German ambulance-planes still did their thing (and got shot down for it until about 1943 when someone at OKW told them to stop). No reciprocal order was given.

Get your head around that.

*sigh* sorry, chaps, it's a Friday evening, I'm in lab (supposedly working) and annoyed because H&S are picking over it.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,548
0
0
Brown.

I watched an interesting little piece on him, where other MPs said his main problem was becoming too involved with every aspect of Parliament and attempting to micro-manage far beyond what was necessary.

The man was highly intelligent, and people should bear in mind that he was attempting to eliminate the boom-bust cycle of the economy. What's Cameron just done? Announced he's going to try and privatise as much as possible.
 

Flames66

New member
Aug 22, 2009
2,310
0
0
I like Winston Churchill because he was an angry drunk. I don't particularly like either of the ones you have listed, but at least Cameron can speak without me falling asleep.
 

ramboondiea

New member
Oct 11, 2010
1,055
0
0
Brown, and i didnt vote for him because i think Cameron is a twat. but i think brown did a damn good job considering the position he was in, he got all the blame for things he didnt do.

now a quick rant about cameron- he is a pillock, everything he does is a PR move, its like he hasnt realised he is already in power. when ever he opens he mouth its all just utter crap, his comments come down to either inconsequential comments about how we all must pull together for Britain future, (basically the your with us or against us school yard psychology) or just sabre rattling comments to try and bolster public opinion about him after he realised how many votes he wont be getting next time round.
 

Baradiel

New member
Mar 4, 2009
1,077
0
0
Brown, easily. He was given the reigns during the worst economic recession in decades, while his predecessor had left him with two wars to fight and jetted off to multi-millionairehood. He had no chance of recovering the economy, and he was never going to survive the election. If he'd resigned about a year before the General Election, Labour might have just got back in. As it was, people didn't want him to even have a chance to cling to power.

Also, Cameron and Cleggy-weggy are just two petty. Infact, democracy is petty banter between parties and individuals, it rare comes down to actually policies anymore.
 

Daverson

New member
Nov 17, 2009
1,163
0
0
Cameron, obviously. To be fair, I don't really like Cameron that much either, I even preferred Blair to Brown - the guy was a complete failure... (Hell, I'd go as far as to say Brown was the worst PM we've had since Chamberlain, and he was pretty much responsible for all of WW2...)

Of course, the Socialists will tell you differently... don't seem to realize the reason tax is going up and Public services are being cut is because that git Brown was going around spending a fuck-ton of money we didn't have. The PM might have more power than most other executives, but he can't make money appear of fucking nowhere...

There's no real need for a poll here, the British people have already voted on this last year ^^
 

SckizoBoy

Ineptly Chaotic
Legacy
Jan 6, 2011
8,678
200
68
A Hermit's Cave
PureChaos said:
i don't support him but it is a coalition so Clegg and Cameron are co-prime ministers. granted he won't get many votes (just like in the election) but he should be an option
1. Thanks for the grammar check (think I wrote it right first time round).
2. Even though it's a coalition, Clegg is not a co-PM, just plain Deputy PM... which is depressing in a sense, as (on a proportional representation basis) he really should be co-PM (First-Past-the-Post sucks major-league balls!). But then, if he was, they wouldn't be able to resolve anything, I don't think... they'd just spend all afternoon going 'hyaw' 'hyaw' 'hyaw' and achieve squat.
 

Rutkowski

New member
Oct 12, 2009
11
0
0
Blizzarded Soul said:
Sorry but no. Unneccessary deaths? The british army was being slaughtered on the beaches of Dunkirk because they couldnt react to the Germans 'Blitzkreig' warfare. It was devastating as it had never been done before. If your talking about the Blitz, again not unneccessary deaths we needed those years to build up our forces and armaments to take back France, why you ask? Because it was a frigging fortress thanks to German efficiency.
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how his incompentence led to the Italians in Africa being reinforced by Rommel and extending the destert war a long time, how he threw away thousands of lives in a pointless endevour in the Greek campaign, or how he told the Scots that held Saint-Valery that they weren't allowed to evacuate(despite them being able to do so for several days before the Germans arrived) *two weeks* after the evacuation of Dunkirk. In the end, they were forced to surrender and 10000 troops were taken prisoners; most of them didn't survive.

Churchill's reason for not allowing them to evacuate? They were needed to keep France in the war, despite the fact that France already surrendered. He pretty much threw away ten thousand men because of his own personal vanity.

Churchill was a racist, a colonialist and a horrible military leader. Had Hitler not been the same the UK would've have fared as well as they did.
 

senorfatso

New member
Jul 26, 2008
61
0
0
bahumat42 said:
UberaDpmn said:
Isn't this thread a bit redundant? The UK is a democracy, we recently had elections; the result being that David Cameron won a near majority, forming a coalition with Nick Clegg of the Lib Dems *Cough*SELLOUTS*Cough*.

You don't have to re-do the elections on the escapist to find that out.

Also: Gordon Brown is a complete *Expletive*-wit and David Cameron is a dirty sniz.

Buuut... at least we got rid of (For the most part) Alistair Darlings' crazy eyebrows.

So I'd call that a win-win all round? XD
i wouldn't call them sellouts. In order to have any sway they have had to drop their ideals, thats what being second string to a major party entails (because they were never going to outright win)
Being a second string party does not entail any such thing. All you can infer from that is the fact that their politics are slightly less mainstream. The Lib Dems have limited political power because of the absolute mess of a democratic system we have. The Lib Dems ARE sellouts; they should have left the Tories to crumble in their minority government. No one will trust the Lib Dems as a viable alternative again.
 

suitepee7

I can smell sausage rolls
Dec 6, 2010
1,273
0
0
the number of posts with "(leader), because (other party + other party leader) are all twats." is quite incredible

nice reasoned argument there, i'm glad you took the time to express that. everybody hates the current government, regardless of when it is, because nobody is totally happy with the current system. brown came in at a time where we hit a recession, and cameron came in when the big cuts had to be made.

when politicians talk about lowering the deficit, the idea is there should be no deficit IMO. deficit is how much out of pocket you are, for that year. if there is ANY deficit, we are not getting the country out of recession because we are not making any profit, we are working in minus money...

neither party is exactly perfect, neither leader is that great. personally i went for cameron, seems like he a bit more intelligent than brown, but that's just my observation.
 

templeg

New member
Dec 11, 2010
38
0
0
Out of the two in the poll, Brown. Cameron is nothing but a posh Terminator, we call him the Tory-1000. Plus, university fees *rage snarl foam at mouth*
 

TheMan2203

New member
Sep 14, 2010
63
0
0
bahumat42 said:
TheMan2203 said:
bahumat42 said:
hudsonzero said:
i dont like cameron/cleg he raised university costs, cut the NH
to be fair university costs were going to have to rise no matter who got in (because the lib dems were never going to get in, so gratz to anyone who wasted that vote.)
well to you sir i say that the numbers would of added up to get the liberals in power IF our voting system wasn't based on proportional representation, the notion of a wasted vote only exists under this regime. Interesting how the tories were all for electoral reform when they werent getting anywhere but now there in power that particular part of the manifesto has been allowed to slink away and die. Seriously this countries political system and unwritten constitution are a bloated mess that picks up vestigial odds and ends purely because of how old it is and is in dire need of sorting out.
right you are. But it is currently under this system. And no matter how much it sucks, imagining it to be something else only seeks to hinder what you want from the government. I voted between which of the 2 big ones were going to win BECAUSE ONE OF THEM WOULD, as the current system allows for no real point to votes going elsewhere, so im glad i voted as i did (whilst lib dems had some interesting ideas, means nothing if they get nothing out of my vote).
Well you are right at the moment, however the way i see it these things do not stay the same forever. Misguided fools like myself who get screwed over by the party they were prepared to waste their votes on and will continue to be lied to for the next few years tend to remember it with feeling of bitterness.
To my eyes, i'd say we're going to feel the real repercussions of this election not now but in a few years when these cuts take hold and people start questioning why they can't afford to eat, then all of this will be dredged up again. It is always darkest before the dawn and this country has a long history of taking issue with that which it does not like.
See Thatchers poll tax and New Labour's 90 day without charge holding proposals.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Generic Gamer said:
Cameron has so far managed not to mis-sell our gold reserves, mishandle our economy and rack up almost a trillion pounds of debt in under fifteen years. He gets my vote. That's the problem with people in the UK, they don't seem to realise that our country is flat broke. Of course we had to cut funding for things...we have no money!

Though I am reminded of a quote from Dr. Who:

"And once every five years, everyone chooses to forget what they've learned. Democracy in action."

Go watch some political shows from five or six years ago and be surprised, people always blame their problems on the current government regardless of who actually caused the problems. The other one that pisses me off is the idea that the Conservatives are the 'posh' ones. There's a political class in this country and THAT is what's wrong with politics! Almost every politician has the same background regardless of party!
... No kidding. Almost all our politicians have a 'rich' background. Most went to Eton, and generally studied in the same places. (Which usually requires a lot of money).

The only real exceptions were older labour candidates that got their positions thanks to trade unions (which no longer really have the power to do that).

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

Danzaivar

New member
Jul 13, 2004
1,965
0
0
OblivionRegained said:
Brown. I mean he was asked to Captain the Titanic after being hit by the iceberg. Same boat Obama is in, but hes a much better captain.
Except he was chancellor of the exchequer (I.e. THE GUY IN CHARGE OF THE FUCKING MONEY) for a decade before it all went to hell, he was warned repeatedly about his spending but he ignored it all.

The fact 2/3s of the vote is for Brown has me REALLY worried about the English people on this forum... o_O
 

PureChaos

New member
Aug 16, 2008
4,987
0
0
SckizoBoy said:
PureChaos said:
i don't support him but it is a coalition so Clegg and Cameron are co-prime ministers. granted he won't get many votes (just like in the election) but he should be an option
1. Thanks for the grammar check (think I wrote it right first time round).
2. Even though it's a coalition, Clegg is not a co-PM, just plain Deputy PM... which is depressing in a sense, as (on a proportional representation basis) he really should be co-PM (First-Past-the-Post sucks major-league balls!). But then, if he was, they wouldn't be able to resolve anything, I don't think... they'd just spend all afternoon going 'hyaw' 'hyaw' 'hyaw' and achieve squat.
1. the wrong use of there/they're/their is one of my pet hates

2. did a bit of research (well, wikipedia!) and, yes, he is Deputy PM. politics was never my strong point. Co-PM would make more sense as they have formed a relationship coalition and at the start they were going on about working closely together, but that seems to have fizzled out. didn't take long! even though they aren't spending all afternoon going 'hyaw' 'hyaw' 'hyaw' (i assume) they STILL don't seem to have achieved much