View Full Version : Who do you prefer, David Cameron or Gordon Brown?
-:undertaker:-
02-05-08, 19:14 PM
Who do you prefer out of Conservative leader David Cameron, and Labour leader Gordon Brown? - More importantly, if you could vote, whom would you vote for? - Discuss!
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=91275&rendTypeId=4
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_01/brownMS0610_468x648.jpg
David lol
He is absolutly abusing gordan atm lol
-:undertaker:-
10-05-08, 00:15 AM
I have to say David Cameron is growing on me, especially after his amazing performances at PMQs'.
He has his own writer to slate Gordan brown lol
Classic
who is david camreon?
I only know gorden brown is Prime minister?
Both are ****ers, haha I prefered Tony Blair.
Well, David Cameron tbh...
-:undertaker:-
14-05-08, 11:56 AM
who is david camreon?
I only know gorden brown is Prime minister?
Conservative Leader.
Both are ****ers, haha I prefered Tony Blair.
Tony Blair was the biggest moron ever, he and Brown both plunged this country into debt, took us into an illegal war and so much more. :055:
hmmm, david cameron, or a chimpanzee..
definatly the chimp :D
tbh, Only gordon brown because i only really know him.
i hate politics (unless its bout waffles)
So i says
GREGGY TO BE NEXT UP FOR ADMIN!
or lets start i debate about These too guys
(i preffer Gordon brown! Cos i never listens to what he says or cares bout what he says)
I'd vote Acqua to be prime minsteress tbh.
She'll make the biggest cookie in the world <3
-:undertaker:-
17-05-08, 16:20 PM
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2005/04/07/steve512.jpg
I rather Michael Howard over David Cameron though, he was often said to be a vampire in the media haha.
Tony Blair was the biggest moron ever, he and Brown both plunged this country into debt, took us into an illegal war and so much more. :055:
Can I ask what made it illegal?
Also, Brown and Cameron are morons, everyone in every party are too.
I think I'd rather have Pete Docherty as prime minister.
No seriously, Ray Mallon would do well, the work he does as mayor for Middlesbrough is amazing.
-loved-
23-05-08, 22:03 PM
I didnt like Gordon before he was primeminister,
ive supported David Careron for a while now,
he's young, and makes sence...
what has gordon done for this country...
he should go back to being the green train on Thomas the Tank Engine
-:undertaker:-
23-05-08, 22:43 PM
Can I ask what made it illegal?
Also, Brown and Cameron are morons, everyone in every party are too.
I think I'd rather have Pete Docherty as prime minister.
No seriously, Ray Mallon would do well, the work he does as mayor for Middlesbrough is amazing.
The UN resolution declared the war illegal, the coalition ignored this and invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq when it posed no threat to any country.
the war was a stupid move, illegal or legal tbh. im sure there was other ways of helping.
and atm i dont know who i support i dont pay much attention
-:undertaker:-
01-06-08, 12:44 PM
the war was a stupid move, illegal or legal tbh. im sure there was other ways of helping.
and atm i dont know who i support i dont pay much attention
The thing is, Iraq was fine.
I agree.
Not the Green train bit lol
But we need someone better than gordan. No-one even voted for him he was just brought to be Prime Minister because Blair stapped down lol
I didnt like Gordon before he was primeminister,
ive supported David Careron for a while now,
he's young, and makes sence...
what has gordon done for this country...
he should go back to being the green train on Thomas the Tank Engine
-:undertaker:-
01-06-08, 21:48 PM
Fully agree, Gordon Brown wasn't even elected.
I know lol
Thats why I dont think he deserves to be PM because I believe if there was a vote then he might not have got that job.
-:undertaker:-
01-06-08, 21:56 PM
One thing seems certain, Labour are heading for obliteration in the next election.
And another thing certain, everyone will be happy.
-:undertaker:-
01-06-08, 22:00 PM
Yeah, Labour seems to think throwing money at failing public services is the answer, its' proven its' not.
Gordon brown is deciding to build casinos instead of hospitals and residential homes?
This is ridiculous.
-:undertaker:-
01-06-08, 22:06 PM
Yeah, and Labour fund all these 'commissioners' to say things like 'don't ban knives from kids because the kids will get upset' - THAT is actually a FACT, one said that a few days ago.
Thats ridiculous LMAO
How can they say that?
Yeah, and Labour fund all these 'commissioners' to say things like 'don't ban knives from kids because the kids will get upset' - THAT is actually a FACT, one said that a few days ago.
-:undertaker:-
01-06-08, 22:09 PM
I know, and public money is going to these people whilst families lose their jobs, food is rising, fuel has risen, gas has risen, electric has risen & water has risen.
Eeer.
Neither tbh, though atleast Cameran has a nice natural smile.
Meh. Go lib dems?
Eeer.
Neither tbh, though atleast Cameran has a nice natural smile.
Meh. Go lib dems?
Go third party? :D
-:undertaker:-
05-06-08, 20:12 PM
Liberal Democrats are a joke at the moment, a weak leader who is quite arrogant (Nick Clegg) and no real policies. I always believed Vince Cable would of been a good choice for leader.
dan you sound like the daily mail mate :(
DC wont break promises, because hes not stupid enough to make any
GB will break promises, because hes not good enough to make any realistic ones
-:undertaker:-
08-06-08, 21:08 PM
Due to the Daily Mail normally being right.
lol, find me an issue where the main headline doesnt make you fear an ethnic group
Well, Labour aren't fit to govern at the moment, they do need to stand down and get a chance to rethink everything without actually having to run the country at the same time.
But I've never liked the prospect of a Conservatively governed UK. However I'm sure they have devised a good way to combat the growth in knife crime etc.
I had to do this, in response to the daily mail normally being right... They are right-winged stuck on one wave-length writers, who make up nonsense and distort the facts from their original form and incidently, they love to scare the nation. However for a light and entertaining read it bodes well with me.
[Did I sound too posh there? I think I did]
please do not confuse posh with well informed, or unprejudiced.
The following is a horrific story yes, but if they even touched a story involving anyone i know like this, id sue them: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-566481/Why-child-safe-sinister-cult-emo.html - Now how the hell can you defend a paper which tells parents that there children will die if they are an emo.
This should be an interesting response x]
@ontopic - Whilst ultimately brown will be weakened by cameron, brown does not have that much to lose - hes already lost the majority of his popularity and support - cameron has it all to lose - especially if he doesnt win the election - every tory leader since heath has gone because they lost an election, or were bad in the polls, brown, kinnock, foot, blair - pretty much all unpopular labour leaders were not ousted after 1 loss.
-:undertaker:-
10-06-08, 18:02 PM
lol, find me an issue where the main headline doesnt make you fear an ethnic group
Tha Daily Mail writes whats going on in this country. The truth is that if they wrote about how good labour are, they wouldn't be one of the best selling papers.
please do not confuse posh with well informed, or unprejudiced.
The following is a horrific story yes, but if they even touched a story involving anyone i know like this, id sue them: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-566481/Why-child-safe-sinister-cult-emo.html - Now how the hell can you defend a paper which tells parents that there children will die if they are an emo.
This should be an interesting response x]
@ontopic - Whilst ultimately brown will be weakened by cameron, brown does not have that much to lose - hes already lost the majority of his popularity and support - cameron has it all to lose - especially if he doesnt win the election - every tory leader since heath has gone because they lost an election, or were bad in the polls, brown, kinnock, foot, blair - pretty much all unpopular labour leaders were not ousted after 1 loss.
Emo culture does lead to suicide/slitting.
There isn't an "emo" culture, I haven't read any other paper that uses stereotyping in it's articles, which in honesty isn't particularly politically correct, and I doubt that many "emos" actually slit, a variety of teenage stereotypes probably slit. And you have to admit the Daily Mail are often quite ludicrous in their claims.
Anyway, back on topic.
I think as long as David Cameron keeps with his current policies and opinions etc he shouldn't make a bad Prime Minister.
-:undertaker:-
10-06-08, 21:34 PM
There isn't an "emo" culture, I haven't read any other paper that uses stereotyping in it's articles, which in honesty isn't particularly politically correct, and I doubt that many "emos" actually slit, a variety of teenage stereotypes probably slit. And you have to admit the Daily Mail are often quite ludicrous in their claims.
Anyway, back on topic.
I think as long as David Cameron keeps with his current policies and opinions etc he shouldn't make a bad Prime Minister.
There is an emo culture, and it sort of 'pushes' people into slitting as if it's a fashion. I'd know since I know a friend whos done the same just to fit in with his new genre.
Camerons policies are few and far between, I could name those he hasnt publically backed down from on one hand - fair play to him though, he could be the first PM elected for standing for sweet FA.
In regard to the subject of this thread, DC v GB I think it goes on what you prefer; Should you value substance, policies, thought, passion and hunger I would suggest you vote GB.
If however you like a smiling face, public opinion, no broken promises (because when you read through the lines, he doesnt actually make any) - then most definately go for DC.
-:undertaker:-
10-06-08, 21:47 PM
Camerons policies are few and far between, I could name those he hasnt publically backed down from on one hand - fair play to him though, he could be the first PM elected for standing for sweet FA.
In regard to the subject of this thread, DC v GB I think it goes on what you prefer; Should you value substance, policies, thought, passion and hunger I would suggest you vote GB.
If however you like a smiling face, public opinion, no broken promises (because when you read through the lines, he doesnt actually make any) - then most definately go for DC.
Gordon Brown substancial & passionate? - Let's think what he's done over past 10 years. Raise taxes, create stealth taxes, raise taxes again during a economically bad time, attempting to look tough on terrorism by pushing for uneeded, over the top 42 day detention limit which means people can then by locked up for 42 days without anyone telling them what they're being charged with. What else, hmm, oh that's it!, abolition of the 10p tax band rate when families are struggling more than ever to cope with soaring costs. Fuel prices are not being helped either with this crazyily high tax on fuel.
Why do you ignore the other 8 sentences I wrote - he will break promises yes, but at least he will make them, and keep some of them. Cameron has made none, so will be bound by none.
-:undertaker:-
11-06-08, 15:22 PM
Similar to how you ignored my case on the EU food surplus wasn't it?
Any tory government is better than a labour government, conservatives have never taxed as bad as the labour party have, so we need conservatism & not a government which spends millions on the EU/gifts to India & China & not a government which thinks throwing money at a problem and centralising everything will make it better.
Liberal Democrats are a joke at the moment, a weak leader who is quite arrogant (Nick Clegg) and no real policies. I always believed Vince Cable would of been a good choice for leader.
I agree, Definatly a weak leader.
Conservative dude
I think he comes from my town B-) [Not city actual town]
Similar to how you ignored my case on the EU food surplus wasn't it?
Any tory government is better than a labour government, conservatives have never taxed as bad as the labour party have, so we need conservatism & not a government which spends millions on the EU/gifts to India & China & not a government which thinks throwing money at a problem and centralising everything will make it better.
i acknowledged i knew nothing about it, so made no attempt to reply to it..
Actually, unlike the labour gov, they tax directly. You hate stealth taxes? Under labour, you dont notice them till they are reported on. Under tories, they are direct taxes - poll tax under thatcher, council tax under major, local taxes under cameron perhaps?
-:undertaker:-
12-06-08, 17:16 PM
I'd rather be taxed for what it's going to be used for yes, and also most tory governments generally tax less than socialist governments.
None, Gordon is a terrible representative for our country, he doesn't even do a good job, we should of stuck with Tony Blair, atleast he was doing things to benefit our country such as fixing tax rates and such, I even read that the money our parents are paying for tax are going towards a new bathroom suit for Gordon and that money isn't going to a good cause. (NHS / Schools). I've not actually hard anything about this David Cameron guy so I won't debate on that note.
-:undertaker:-
13-06-08, 12:50 PM
None, Gordon is a terrible representative for our country, he doesn't even do a good job, we should of stuck with Tony Blair, atleast he was doing things to benefit our country such as fixing tax rates and such, I even read that the money our parents are paying for tax are going towards a new bathroom suit for Gordon and that money isn't going to a good cause. (NHS / Schools). I've not actually hard anything about this David Cameron guy so I won't debate on that note.
Tony Blair was just as bad mate. He and Gordon Brown have/are spent 11 years raising taxes and throwing money at failing public services which don't need more red tape or money, they need local management and not some monsterous centralised committee who aren't in the real world.
Centralisation may not be your favourite word, but it is a proven more efficient way of running things. Why do you think businesses have had head offices since the 19th century? Surely a pro-businessly motivated debater like yourself would realise the advantages this would have; instead of spreading around your talent, you focus it - its better to have a huge actual talent, instead of a huge potential of talent - it is proven that people work best in competition or team based situations - centralisation ensures this. Not to mention that all 3 political parties in this country are centralised, bottom down parties.
-:undertaker:-
14-06-08, 11:32 AM
Centralisation may not be your favourite word, but it is a proven more efficient way of running things. Why do you think businesses have had head offices since the 19th century? Surely a pro-businessly motivated debater like yourself would realise the advantages this would have; instead of spreading around your talent, you focus it - its better to have a huge actual talent, instead of a huge potential of talent - it is proven that people work best in competition or team based situations - centralisation ensures this. Not to mention that all 3 political parties in this country are centralised, bottom down parties.
It's proven it doesn't work, just look at the NHS and how all the rail companies are having problems. If you watched Gerry Robinsons NHS program you'd see how centralised and hard it is to run a hospital under all the red tape this governments has covered everything in.
It's proven it doesn't work, just look at the NHS and how all the rail companies are having problems. If you watched Gerry Robinsons NHS program you'd see how centralised and hard it is to run a hospital under all the red tape this governments has covered everything in.
NHS? You couldnt be more wrong. Why do you think there are more administrators in local health trusts than consultants? They run themselves; hence why local health authorities were setup?
Rail companies may be struggling, but consider banks (before the credit crunch, obv) posting profits of double figure billions - Shell, BHP posting nearly double digit billions of profit per 3 months?
-:undertaker:-
16-06-08, 21:52 PM
NHS? You couldnt be more wrong. Why do you think there are more administrators in local health trusts than consultants? They run themselves; hence why local health authorities were setup?
Rail companies may be struggling, but consider banks (before the credit crunch, obv) posting profits of double figure billions - Shell, BHP posting nearly double digit billions of profit per 3 months?
Watch the programs which visit the NHS and ask the nurses what it's like, then you'll understand how much trouble they have with red tape from the government and the EU, when really, they just want to do their job.
Theres a difference between beaurocracy and centralisation - as a result of the federalised system, there are now guidelines and procudures that now have to be followed - for example, you have to fill out roughly 4 pages of paperwork for every death on your ward. There are however, alot more administrators within hospitals to take care of this now; instead of raised wages for nurses/more consultants - they spent the money putting in a system to allow hospitals to run themselves under their own health care trusts.
Nurses do their job, the only problem is that there are more people coming in demanding help/harassing them, then theyre used to. Dont blame the system, blame the people who abuse it.
The EU have NO INPUT into the NHS at all - you cant just decide they are at fault for things because they dont work aswell as youd like.
-:undertaker:-
20-06-08, 18:20 PM
NHS is hampered by the red tape surronding itself. The nurses themselves say it. Do you and the left know better than the people whom work there day in, day out?
im not on the left, just as you are not on the right. The daily mail is, you are not.
It is ridiculous to ask nurses to run themselves - its a conflict of interests. Its like asking habbox to set the rare values - it is not their purpose to set them, but to be impartial and follow what habbo trading does.
If you let habbox set values, then they would manipulate it, and that is bad, yes?
In the same way, if you let the nurses run the NHS, it would be great for them, but for it to be great for some, it must be bad for the rest... What was that on house the other day - the regulations are there because 95% of the time, they work, for the other 5%, its an acceptable loss, for the greater good of the percentile which is 19 times bigger.
Think about my habbox analogy - then youll see the NHS at the moment is in its ideal place - it is not run by those who might (unwittingly) cut corners because regulations are lax (nurses are good, yes, but after an 18 hour shift can you expect them to perform to their best) - There is however one problem with the NHS - putting a value on health care. Raise taxes, put more money into the wage structure to bring nurses wages in line with that of docters; they play a much bigger role.
I say Gordon because he does nothing - just like me!
x
FunnyJackers
29-07-08, 03:26 AM
None, I hate them both