Jump to content
270soft Forum
POLLWONK

Britain 2015... Cameron, Milliband, or Clegg???

2015 Eval  

27 members have voted

  1. 1. 2015 prediction...

    • David Cameron wins 2nd term.
      16
    • Ed Milliband wins.
      10
    • Nick Clegg wins.
      2
  2. 2. Is the Labour Party drifting too far leftward?

    • Yes.
      8
    • No.
      17
    • Maybe.
      3
  3. 3. If the Labour Party loses in 2015, which Labour Partier is most likely to succeed Ed Miliband?

    • David Miliband
      11
    • Ed Balls
      5
    • Andy Burnham
      5
    • Diane Abbot
      4
    • Harriet Harman
      1
    • Alan Johnson
      0
    • Ian McNicol
      0
    • Janet Royall
      0
    • Peter Hain
      1
    • Hazel Blears
      1


Recommended Posts

82% of Scientist believe it is man-made. Note a "Far-Left" or a "Far Right" view does not it is unreasonable if facts back it up. A "Centrist" View doesn't make it reasonable if facts don't support it.

David Cameron has publically supported Julia Gillard's carbon tax which puts a price on CO2 emissions. Putting a price on carbon cannot by any means be called a "far left" position. It is, as I have argued, a centrist position, as it should be. Putting a price on CO2 emissions is a policy supported by the current Conservative government in the UK. Now, unless POLLWONK wants to argue that Cameron is far-left...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"One of FDR’s enduring strengths was his rejection of ideological constraint. He sought solutions that could actually address problems, no matter where those solutions might sit on the political spectrum. But freeing oneself from ideological restrictions is not the same as seeking the middle ground. Today, many prominent elected officials, as well as a few prominent editorial pages, tend to celebrate the centrist path no matter the policy outcome and condescendingly reject ideas championed by those they believe occupy a less moderate position. That is utter nonsense. The test of an idea is not whether it belongs to the political left, right, or center. The test of an idea is whether it will work. Yet too many of our nation’s current political leaders seem to be captives of a kind of political GPS system, programmed to seek either a specific set of principles laid down by a fervent base or, alternatively, a political middle ground whose inhabitants observe profoundly that “both sides dislike it, so it must be right.” A favorite and related concept of these same sages is that of bipartisanship, but for them bipartisanship is not so much members of different parties’ hammering out meaningful solutions as it is a group of middle-grounders who can be relied upon to embrace impotent proposals. To many in the Beltway, bipartisanship itself has become its own hollow ideology." -Russ Feingold

http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/russ-feingold-2011-10/

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current polling in the UK seems to be very uniformly giving the same picture.

At last years election, Labour and the Lib Dems polled very close (29.7 to 23.6), with the Cons at 36.9. Current polling has the Cons at around those levels (or a little below), with the Lib Dems suffering greately, at Labour's advantage. The Lib Dems have not had such low figures at an election in well over 20 years.

A good part of Labour's problem in the UK is the Lib Dems splitting the left/progressive vote, allowing the Conservatives to win. A great fault of the UK's barbaric FPTP voting system. With this fairly significant collapse in support for the Lib Dems, Labour would pick up a lot of seats at the expense of the Conservatives.

So long as the Lib Dems suffer this popularity problem, a vote in the low-mid teens at the next election would probably see Labour return to power. However, I think the only way the Lib Dems could really recover is by abandoning their coalition. At the 2010 election, the Lib Dems picked up a lot of the left/progressive vote from the fairly centrist incumbent Labour party. But Clegg siding with the Cons, something nobody could have anticipated, the Lib Dems have lost a lot of their left/progressive base support to Labour. It's likely that the left will continue to side with Labour up to the next election, unless the Lib Dems do something dramatic to bring down the Cons. But that, as it did in Canada, would probably result in the Cons winning a majority.

In short, I think the Lib Dems have screwed themselves over, and Labour will really clean up at their expense.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for returning to the original debate, Alfonzo...

I agree that the Lib Dems probably have nailed their own coffins...

I agree that Cameron is in trouble.

I agree that the Labour has a reasonable shot.

I am concerned that Milliband might take the party too far to the left.

I am concerned that Cameron may end up becoming the Tories version of Gordon Brown.

Current polling in the UK seems to be very uniformly giving the same picture.

At last years election, Labour and the Lib Dems polled very close (29.7 to 23.6), with the Cons at 36.9. Current polling has the Cons at around those levels (or a little below), with the Lib Dems suffering greately, at Labour's advantage. The Lib Dems have not had such low figures at an election in well over 20 years.

A good part of Labour's problem in the UK is the Lib Dems splitting the left/progressive vote, allowing the Conservatives to win. A great fault of the UK's barbaric FPTP voting system. With this fairly significant collapse in support for the Lib Dems, Labour would pick up a lot of seats at the expense of the Conservatives.

So long as the Lib Dems suffer this popularity problem, a vote in the low-mid teens at the next election would probably see Labour return to power. However, I think the only way the Lib Dems could really recover is by abandoning their coalition. At the 2010 election, the Lib Dems picked up a lot of the left/progressive vote from the fairly centrist incumbent Labour party. But Clegg siding with the Cons, something nobody could have anticipated, the Lib Dems have lost a lot of their left/progressive base support to Labour. It's likely that the left will continue to side with Labour up to the next election, unless the Lib Dems do something dramatic to bring down the Cons. But that, as it did in Canada, would probably result in the Cons winning a majority.

In short, I think the Lib Dems have screwed themselves over, and Labour will really clean up at their expense.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for returning to the original debate, Alfonzo...

I agree that the Lib Dems probably have nailed their own coffins...

I agree that Cameron is in trouble.

I agree that the Labour has a reasonable shot.

I am concerned that Milliband might take the party too far to the left.

I am concerned that Cameron may end up becoming the Tories version of Gordon Brown.

It doesn't seem like the voting population are too concerned about Labour going too far to the left. Couple more years of Cameron and they would probably embrace a move to the left.

It's really interesting to see that the Cons have only lost a couple of percent from their 2010 result, while the Lib Dems went from being nearly equal to Labour, down to less than 1/4th of Labour's vote. Labour have definitely won out in Clegg's deal with the Con's. The Lib Dems got a lot of the left-wing vote in 2010 because the lefties saw Labour as being more of a centrist party. But with Clegg giving the UK a conservative government, the Lib Dems traditional voter base has abandoned them. Moving more to the left will really only help Labour secure the votes they earned off the Lib Dems.

But surprisingly, the Conservatives are much more left than the conservative party in Australia. From what I hear, the Cons are quite socially progressive, and are quite determined to take strong action on climate change. If I were you POLLWONK, I'd be more worried about the Conservatives going too far to the left :P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that political discussion is not allowed, maybe it's about time that the Admin put a stop to all this. I thought the scenario creation forums were for discussing scenario creation, not for debating policy and issues unrelated to the game. This statement is taken directly from forum rules, "This forum is not for political posts. It's for posts about 270soft (including TheorySpark and 80soft) games and scenarios."

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that political discussion is not allowed, maybe it's about time that the Admin put a stop to all this. I thought the scenario creation forums were for discussing scenario creation, not for debating policy and issues unrelated to the game. This statement is taken directly from forum rules, "This forum is not for political posts. It's for posts about 270soft (including TheorySpark and 80soft) games and scenarios."

The forums are otherwise dead. And with admin MIA on updates to a buggy game that was released months ago, and no news at all on a game that was supposed to be finished last year, and with pressure to release the beta for another game, the least we should be able to have is a little discussion of politics while we wait for products we paid for over a year ago to finally be bug-free enough to play.

Don't kill the forums dude!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that political discussion is not allowed, maybe it's about time that the Admin put a stop to all this. I thought the scenario creation forums were for discussing scenario creation, not for debating policy and issues unrelated to the game. This statement is taken directly from forum rules, "This forum is not for political posts. It's for posts about 270soft (including TheorySpark and 80soft) games and scenarios."

The policy and issues do relate to the game. Policy and elections are intertwined, without policy how can you understand elections?

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that political discussion is not allowed, maybe it's about time that the Admin put a stop to all this. I thought the scenario creation forums were for discussing scenario creation, not for debating policy and issues unrelated to the game. This statement is taken directly from forum rules, "This forum is not for political posts. It's for posts about 270soft (including TheorySpark and 80soft) games and scenarios."

Hi everyone,

This forum is not for political posts. It's for posts about 270soft (including TheorySpark and 80soft) games and scenarios.

Guidelines

Stay On Topic

Stay on topic on the threads, simple as that.

No Offensive Content

There is to be no posting any offensive content of any kind. This includes tubgirl, goatse, pain5.jpg, scary loud things popping out pages, bad language, etc. If you post something like this corrective action will be taken.

This is not intended to exclude legitimate political debate where appropriate. 270soft reserves the right to define what 'legitimate' political debate means in this context.

Advertising Political Sites

If you want to advertise a forum or political site of yours, e-mail us first ( http://270soft.com/contact/ ) and tell us what it is. If we say it's okay, then you can go ahead and post it. We will probably close the thread afterwards.

Finally:

No Personal Ad Hominem Attacks

This requires some common sense.

Not good: "Bob, you're stupid."

Better, but also not good: "Bob, that idea is stupid."

Good: "Bob, I disagree with that idea, and here's why."

Not good: "Bob, you're evil."

Better, but also not good: "Bob, the views you hold are evil."

Good: "Bob, I believe some of the views you hold, if implemented, would make our society worse off. Here's why."

Thanks,

The 270soft Team

Debate on issues, policy, and legitimate political debate is totally allowed.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The policy and issues do relate to the game. Policy and elections are intertwined, without policy how can you understand elections?

One can argue that discussing the politics pertaining to a future election is essential to anyone wanting to create a future election scenario. If anyone is trying to make a UK 2015 scenario, this thread could come in very handy.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, nobody expected Corbyn did they

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LegolasRedbard said:

Man, nobody expected Corbyn did they

No they didnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one expected an IRA lover as head of Labor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, victorraiders said:

supporter of castro family and hugo chavez/maduro

Ultimately, people like to endlessly slam the Castros. Keep in mind why they were so popular during their actual revolution, though. Fulgencio Batista, the American (and Mafia) puppet President of Cuba previously, a bloody-handed tyrant who arrested and executed many people on SUSPICION of being Communists (with no real stronghold for evidence), and effectively strongarmed peasants and small landowners off their land to sell it to Mafiasos to build resorts and casinos, among other oppression and corruption in his government. His negative traits of governance were different - but can you honestly say they were BETTER?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Ultimately, people like to endlessly slam the Castros. Keep in mind why they were so popular during their actual revolution, though. Fulgencio Batista, the American (and Mafia) puppet President of Cuba previously, a bloody-handed tyrant who arrested and executed many people on SUSPICION of being Communists (with no real stronghold for evidence), and effectively strongarmed peasants and small landowners off their land to sell it to Mafiasos to build resorts and casinos, among other oppression and corruption in his government. His negative traits of governance were different - but can you honestly say they were BETTER?

That was one of FDR's (I think it was him) mistakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Ultimately, people like to endlessly slam the Castros. Keep in mind why they were so popular during their actual revolution, though. Fulgencio Batista, the American (and Mafia) puppet President of Cuba previously, a bloody-handed tyrant who arrested and executed many people on SUSPICION of being Communists (with no real stronghold for evidence), and effectively strongarmed peasants and small landowners off their land to sell it to Mafiasos to build resorts and casinos, among other oppression and corruption in his government. His negative traits of governance were different - but can you honestly say they were BETTER?

what? i need like fulgencio to hate castros?? castros are more worst because are 50 year dictator killed much more than 80,000 of cubans and try make similiar regime in anothers latin america countrys i don't need cite famine and others things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JDrakeify said:

Image result for donald trump gerry adams

Just saying.

 

Well, remember what that other guy in the photo would say a few decades later, "Note all Moslems are terrorists, but all terrorists are Moslems."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, remember what that other guy in the photo would say a few decades later, "Note all Moslems are terrorists, but all terrorists are Moslems."

*ahem *@Patine 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

*ahem *@Patine 

The context of me saying that quote is it could (perhaps jokingly) indicate that Trump doesn't consider the IRA to be "terrorists" because they're not Moslem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Patine said:

Ultimately, people like to endlessly slam the Castros. Keep in mind why they were so popular during their actual revolution, though. Fulgencio Batista, the American (and Mafia) puppet President of Cuba previously, a bloody-handed tyrant who arrested and executed many people on SUSPICION of being Communists (with no real stronghold for evidence), and effectively strongarmed peasants and small landowners off their land to sell it to Mafiasos to build resorts and casinos, among other oppression and corruption in his government. His negative traits of governance were different - but can you honestly say they were BETTER?

He didn't come off as a Communist.  Which is why many jumped at the opportunity to overthrow the corrupt dictator.  Ted Cruz's father was one of those duped by Castro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×