Poll: Which Prime Minister does the UK prefer?

[Inglip]

Griffin.

Oh shit, you're not meant to know about that yet.

 

[Hgame]

i dont like cameron/cleg he raised university costs, cut the NH

The NHS isn't being cut. It, along with foreign aid is one of two spending areas that were ring-fenced.

I'll go for the one that didn't start any wars.

That's both of them. Although one could argue that Gordon Brown was involved in the decision-making process for both Middle Eastern wars, but Cameron was (I think) a Tory MP back then, and so would probably have supported them.

They were going to ring-fence it, but when they got into power they decided not to.

 

[mb16]

David Cameron. as the Tories are doing what needs to be done, not just what we want till its too late.

 

[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.

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?

The conservatives gained majority via an extremely flawed electoral system.

I'm all for electoral reform trust me. But a government elected under FPTP is still a government. I will be happy when we get a more proportional system, but we can't punish the Tories for being elected under the system that was already in place.

 

[supermariner]

i really dislike both of them

But as a PM, Cameron is doing a much better job
as a party as a whole, Brown's labour had the right ideas
Apart from the Iraq war obviously but that was a Blair issue

i chose Brown

not because he's the better prime minister
because everything he touched went to shit
and Cameron is an Ex-PR man so knows how to be seen doing the right things
BUT he's fucking us working classes up bigtime with removal of benefits and working opportunities, he's just doing it with a smile and hoping we don't notice

BUT at the end of the day, The PM alone has little to no power
whereas the collective party does
so Brown's the man for me

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Brown. I can't say I'm a fan in any way but I prefer him to the Tories. He wasn't a people person and couldn't deal with the media but he wasn't actively bad where it really mattered. The Tories are just using the recession as an excuse to enact a load of idealogical policies that they'd never get away with otherwise that ring money out of the poorest sections of society and do little to deal with the actual causes of the recession.

 

[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.