Poll: Which Prime Minister does the UK prefer?

[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.

 

[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)