So if you had to choose...
Who would it be.
David Davis or David Cameron? Im not a tory nor can I ever see myself being one, however there is a possibility that the tories could make a push at the next general election and if they did get into power well it does effect us. Personally I would say David Cameron, purely because he seems like a nice bloke, intelligent and is as down to earth for an old etonian (villa fan, has the occasional fag, which means he did weed at uni, actually studied politics (PPE at Oxford) and enjoys ale, as well as that he has a wife and kids.) David Davis though seems like a bit of a weirdo. He has a weird mouth, the upper part sticks out more than the lower part, I think its his teeth, anyway it looks weird. I also dont think that he would be able to fight someone like brown at a general election. Not only that but I saw him in an interview with paxman on newsnight and he seemed like a bit of twat. He was mumbling something about opting out of a UN immigration thing, which even zimbabwe is part of. North Korea isnt and he wants to opt out of it, the guy seems like a twat full stop. |
Re: So if you had to choose...
Davis would be a total disaster. :(
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
David Davis seems to be the more statesman like of the two but as far as I can see his only failing is that he is a self important shit who gets more annoying every day.
I really don't care if he lived on a council estate, I did and it didn't turn me into an annoying twat like him (probably still a twat though) and it's not something I feel the need to mention everytime I talk to someone. Cameron could turn out to be the Conservative equivalent of Blair, young, dynamic and hopeless. I'd vote for neither. |
Re: So if you had to choose...
Cameron. I was hoping for Clarke. :(
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
I would choose david davis in the hope of causing further damage to the conservative party.
I would then disband the conservative party. re-name new labour 'the tory party'. reform the Liberal party and poach all of the decent morally upright members of the old conservative and labour parties in order to create a party full of reasonable, genuine and liberal politicians. let's call it 'a long term plan' |
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
Say about none. |
Re: So if you had to choose...
Choose what? Leader of the nation or leader of the Conservative Party?
If we have to have either as leader of the nation then probably Cameron. They're all identikit tossers anyway but he said something about downgrading ecstacy to Class B or something like that, so why not. Obviously Davis would be better as leader of the Tory Party since that'd make them even less electable. |
Re: So if you had to choose...
Davis is simply of the mould of recent leaders - I.E, what we need is more of the same. No real reform of image of policies. He is completely unsuited to be leader. He is IDS Mk II.
We know almost nothing about Cameron politically, other than he has supported in the past some fairly offbeat schemes, such as a flat tax. He also supported the Iraq war, is highly neo-con in his inclinations, although is 'reformist' on some things, such as drugs laws. There isn't really that much to suggest that he's a genuine moderniser or a reformer other than his own say so during the campaign, although he obviously has a better grasp of what needs to be done, at least in image terms, than Davis does. Cameron has simply said what others have been saying for years; the difference is that this time it looks partially credible, although it remains to be seen if he wants to put any flesh on the bones of it. Almost everyone else in the party - Davis included - in the past few years have talked about reform extensively but done precisely nothing about it. It's not really anything new in that sense - the only difference is that Cameron has been so polished, people have started standing up and listening. It'll be interesting - or at least, entertaining - regardless of which of them win, because both are quite divisive figures, and there will be a lot bitching in the party as a result. |
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
Although he does appear to want ex junkies to talk to students and say how it ruined their life. Slightly reminiscent of the "drugs" Brass Eye episode with the "school junkie" who turned into a horse. At least I think it was a horse :) |
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
Davis, but i hoped for Clarke
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
Clarke would have been good at the ballot box if he was only running on his own personal merits. But he would have been pretty disastorous for the party itself, and that would have impacted it's electoral fortunes. Clarke is lazy, badly disciplined, extremley divisive, and has the wrong idea about where the party should go.
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
Wait how is studying politics at university meant to be a good thing? Why would a sane, intelligent, well-balanced person decide to study politics as an undergrad? Its difficult to think of a group of people less fit to run a country (management students perhaps).
Regarding the thread topic, the reasons youve given for preferring either one are shit and completely unrelated to competance/values, so I doubt you care much more than I do (and thats very little). edit: MM said cameron supported a flat-tax so it would probably be him, even though theres less chance of that passing than a law banning fat people from using the Tube. |
Re: So if you had to choose...
What on earth are you talking about?
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
It's not clear to me why you are saying sane well-balanced types wouldn't. I possibly would have, but there did not appear to be any real career options for lazy antisocial types in politics. And if by 'management' you mean the UK equivalent of business, i agree with that. The business majors I knew were pretty much all former engineering and premed majors who made the move for the obvious reasons. |
Re: So if you had to choose...
Yeah but being taught politics at undergrad level is like having someone inject a small amount of cancer every day into you and while your body can fight off the individual bits eventually it just overwhelms your system and you become some sort of raving lunatic with less understanding of how the real world works than my pet snail Bill.
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
But anyway, I did Politics at Undergraduate level. I could have done some sort of Comp Sci type course, but I would have ended up hating it (both the course and computing in general). And I thought a Politics degree would be easier. And it was indeed pretty easy. Basically my undergrad course involved going into University for about 3-4 hours a week (lectures were optional), eyeing up pretty girls (we were in the Arts Faculty which had far more attractive girls than the Maths or Engineering faculties) and reading stuff I would have wanted to read anyway. There was almost zero workload and I got to study the things I was genuinely interested in. That's why. |
Re: So if you had to choose...
Reference material above by the way.
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
The course itself seems to have a rather limited grasp on the real world, not to mention it has very little data to actually base its theories on. Why my university offers this course (democracy and democratization) is beyond me. It should not qualify under the demands for scientific value. However, the lecturer is very good. |
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
I will be voting for Cameron mainly as he is a bit more interesting and his more lenient drugs policy. Other than that most of their policies are nearly identical, the few that I have seen Cameron discuss so far anyway. |
Re: So if you had to choose...
Incidentally, im not sure if anyone has mentioned the main reason why people are voting for Cameron.
He has good hair. This is actually true, and quite upsetting :( |
Re: So if you had to choose...
http://www.cameroncampaign.org/faqs.html#faq4
There's too much horrible stuff here to make him a worthwhile human being (although this is vaguely encouraging), and I'm too apathetic to go google for information about what the other one believes. |
Re: So if you had to choose...
I plan to immediately move to the UK and begin a campaign to do things:
1. Change the name of the Conservative Party to the Evitavresnoc Ytrap. 2. Then I would advance the candidacy of the only logical candidate for leader, Nodrog. (True story.) |
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
*unless you are some whacky keynesian and are hoping the flat tax greatly lowers revenue creating huge deficits which logically should promote growth if you didn't read his book very carefully |
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
assuming you mean a flat tax % of income (as opposed to flat % of wealth or a true flat 'everyone pays X' system), i think the opposite on both counts.
Quote:
and while it's true that the more i suck, the more i have to spend in taxes, it's still okay because being as i am below the average income mark, i'm still getting more than my share back with every % the rate moves up. Quote:
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
i guess my real problem is that when people talk about changing a tax system, the only two relevant questions are: 1. Who do you want to raise taxes on? and 2. Who do you want to lower taxes on? and the phrase 'flat tax' manages to talk about radically altering the tax system without answering any relevant question about what the changes would actually mean. using a non-ideal 'flat tax' as you describe, you could: raise taxes on the poor, lower them on the rich. raise taxes on the rich, lower them on the poor. or: raise taxes on the middle class, and lower them on the rich and the poor. i get the impression nod means lower on the rich, higher on the rest. |
Re: So if you had to choose...
Who else giggles when nodrog says things like "leeching off the wealthy"?
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
In the US, one of the arguments in favor of the flat tax is that the rich would actually pay more than they do now.
While the tax rate would be lower, there would be no deductions which favor the rich under the current system. (There would be a threshold income before the tax would start as well to protect the poor). There is also an argument that there would be less tax evasion which costs the government many billions of dollars each year. The tax system wouyld also be simplified, there would only need to be a very short form for everyone. How much did you make? What is 14% of that? (for example) How much did you have deducted dluring the year? Pay too much? Thanks we'll send you a check. Pay too little? Cool, send us a check. It probably would not live up to expectations because, even if implemented, the politicians wouldn't be able to keep their hands off of it. They would want to bribe this constituancy and that with new deductions and tax incentives and pretty soon it would be back to the same problem. |
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
Quote:
edit: I'm going home now anyway so blah |
Re: So if you had to choose...
cameron smokes crack, he'll be right at home as PM.
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
The capacity of the middle classes to rubbish their blessings never ceases to amaze me. |
Re: So if you had to choose...
hey after googling, it turns out davis also supports a 'flat foreign policy'
Quote:
|
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
that's genuinely fantastic. Hooray for the Tory party! |
Re: So if you had to choose...
Quote:
I dont care enough about the full details of Cameron's proposal to bother researching them, since I know that it isnt going to be very radical since otherwise he wouldnt be elected> However I can induce from the fact he is a Conservative that it probably isnt going to result in an increase in the tax burden paid by the wealthy so I'm probably going to prefer it to the present model (although not by much since again, it isnt going to be radical). This isnt difficult. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:22. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018