Just so all of you are aware the Speaker has invited me to his office to discuss legislation. I will report anything of interest that comes from the discussions.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Thank you, Dr. Glasser. I hope that the ELP and PoL can come together to work on the issues that we share.
I'm still not sure we can get total backbench support for that. The labour is what 'the corrections department considers suitable for the convict.' That could be dangerous under a right-wing administration. It needs ring-fencing with regulations establishing that prisoners must be treated decently, it needs to be made clear that it won't always be physical labour (since there are plenty of other options, most of which will lead to more career options besides re-offending when they get out,) you might want to consider upping the time allowed for 'spiritual or intellectual pursuits' and I'm not sure 3) makes any sense in the shortened version of the bill. Obviously, if you disagree with any of what I've said, tell me and we'll try and get the best we can out of it.
Nevertheless, this redaction is very much better.
(OOC: I see you've already submitted it. Never mind then. I'll propose those changes as friendly amendments later or something. Meantime we should probably be seconding the stuff the rest of the party proposes.)
Nevertheless, this redaction is very much better.
(OOC: I see you've already submitted it. Never mind then. I'll propose those changes as friendly amendments later or something. Meantime we should probably be seconding the stuff the rest of the party proposes.)
Last edited:
Well in my talks with Leary he is offering us the following tax deal: .25 BP Earned Income Credit, .25 Raising of the Deductable and .25 Corporate Tax Reduction. I have explained that I'm not leader of the party, but because of my centrist views he seems to be more comfortable talking me. I will gladly discontinue our discussions if the party leadership desires it.
"Has Leary yet given any good reason why we should accept his deal rather than do it ourselves through the Ministry of Finance? Compromise is useful when it gains us something. As it is I have a horrible suspicion that if we do what he wants he'll be using it as the mainplank of his next campaign and claiming we had nothing to do with it.
I'm no more senior than you are within the party, but I'd keep stringing him along. If he can give us a good reason why we should work with him, let's do that. If co-operation makes no difference except satisfying his ego, then we can still act unilaterally."
I'm no more senior than you are within the party, but I'd keep stringing him along. If he can give us a good reason why we should work with him, let's do that. If co-operation makes no difference except satisfying his ego, then we can still act unilaterally."
Indeed. Why should we comprimise at this opportunity? He is probably just trying to break the party anyway.
He claims that he will ensure it kills the rest of our legislative agenda, which I do not see as much of a threat since even if we acomplish nothing else we have a strong position to run on. He also claims that he can tie it up in court and if we ever lose control of the MoF that the cuts will be rolled back immeadiately. This final claim is, to me, the best reason we should negoitiate so that we can lock in the good now.
Hear, hear, Jonathan. We are servants of Eutopia first and foremost. They are our concern - not petty ideology.
Three years of benefits has a value in and of itself, and whoever rolls back those cuts will be angering a lot of voters.
Oh, Mr. President, since I noticed you got called into the situation room, I thought I would suggest, if there is something going and since we campaigned on open and accountable government, it would be a good idea to make an announcement, so you show you are different than President Zhokyen.
Oh, Mr. President, since I noticed you got called into the situation room, I thought I would suggest, if there is something going and since we campaigned on open and accountable government, it would be a good idea to make an announcement, so you show you are different than President Zhokyen.
We shouldnt let Leary push us around at all. He may kill our legislation agenda and use the courts but we have the veto and can kill their legislation agenda as well. If the peace talks go well with Tilapia then we will have a decent foundation for the next election. The key to our success is keeping the PL with us, we should be discussing legislation with them more so then the conservatives who only want to break us. Right now they are throwing speculative threats at us which should only make it more apparent on our part the importance of a friendship with the PL.
"You seem confused, Per Florian. First you say you don't want to let Leary push us around, then you urge co-operation with the PoL. Let's be clear here. The PoL are not our allies. We take similar positions on a number of issues, but there are big differences. They don't seem to want to compromise on economics to get our support, I see no reason why we should.
Oh, and Leary's threats are empty. He can slow down our legislative agenda, but only at the expense of crucifying his reputation and he can't break the floor rules he wrote and come out with any credibility. Plus if he did try to pull that kind of stunt he'd never get control over his backbenchers again.
What's more, his threat of using the courts against the cut is moronic. If he's going to argue that the MoF can't make decisions on financial matters, he's destroying any rationale for that department's existence. Even if he doesn't get laughed out of court, he'll find himself the target of a torrent of flax.
And he knows this. We only need to co-operate if he's offering us something better than what we can do ourselves.
What I think you need to do, Dr. Glasser, is to point out that we know this too. I have every confidence that you'll be able to make your position clear to him, and unlike the rest of us you're diplomatic enough to do it without offending him."
Oh, and Leary's threats are empty. He can slow down our legislative agenda, but only at the expense of crucifying his reputation and he can't break the floor rules he wrote and come out with any credibility. Plus if he did try to pull that kind of stunt he'd never get control over his backbenchers again.
What's more, his threat of using the courts against the cut is moronic. If he's going to argue that the MoF can't make decisions on financial matters, he's destroying any rationale for that department's existence. Even if he doesn't get laughed out of court, he'll find himself the target of a torrent of flax.
And he knows this. We only need to co-operate if he's offering us something better than what we can do ourselves.
What I think you need to do, Dr. Glasser, is to point out that we know this too. I have every confidence that you'll be able to make your position clear to him, and unlike the rest of us you're diplomatic enough to do it without offending him."
Per Berenguerr, there is a difference between Learys heavy handiness and working with the PL as equal partners. I urge what you and others have urged, productive concession between us and the other parties.
Per Berenguerr thank you for the kind words and the others for their feedback. I would like to suggest that codifying favorable tax breaks into law is worth a minor concession in the corporate tax rate, but only a minor one. I am going to make it clear that if we're compromising here, it's because we expect to get something else positive in return, not empy threats. I know our position of strength on this issue, it just worries me that the strength might be fleeting in terms to come, but the law will not be. It will be far harder for multiple parties to roll back popular tax cuts then it will be for a single minister to enact new regulations. However, if we cannot achieve something favorable now, then there is no point in bargaining away a future that might not come.
"I'd agree with you that there's a value having it codified in law, although I have to say that I don't see any of the other parties ever campaigning on a platform of increased taxes.
Nevertheless, the tax cut is only going to be 0.75BP. That means the corporate tax reduction is going to be so small as to be nearly meaningless.
However, when all's said and done, I trust you to get the right deal for us. Do whatever you think is best."
Nevertheless, the tax cut is only going to be 0.75BP. That means the corporate tax reduction is going to be so small as to be nearly meaningless.
However, when all's said and done, I trust you to get the right deal for us. Do whatever you think is best."
Heres the first piece of anti smoking legislation I have come up with and seeing that Mr Black I believe brought it up I think it is only approriate for him and the other member so of the ELP to view it.
well this of course is just one of many which I have planned and the age limit of course shall be adressed in the next peice of legislation
- Status