Liberal Democracy - HQ

[Apebe]

I've contacted Timothy by PM as soon as he registred. he seems interrested by the general party policy. He's a nuclear specialist and I thought it would be very interresting to have him in our Party to structure our Nuclear Policy ...

I know patric123 (PDS) from the AAR forum ...

 

[unmerged(228)]

Okay. I'm in. I hope to contribute to the LD in general, and particulary in the field of envirormental policy and energy, particulary nuclear energy. One of EUtopia's major problem is polution, and this problem can't be solved with a classical anti-polution policy. Efficiency is the key word here, and to attain great efficiency, we need to concentrate on several key items.

Nuclear energy should provide for about 20%/30% of EUtopia's energy demand. Nuclear energy is the only source of energy which doesn't involve atmospheric emisions and which is available on an industrial scale. Alternative sources of energy (wind, water, solar, geothermal.) simply can't provide enough energy to meet demand. Exploitation of these sources should remain a niche solution within the greater concept.

Efficiency is the key to reduction of harmfull emisions. Companies which waste resources should be taxed, investments in the envirorment and into production efficiency should be subsidized. Further envirormental policies should be implemented as needed but if this involves action outside the increase or modification of company productio process, the state should fund the effort.

EUtopia needs to start a program of developing it's own nuclear fusion plants. The goal of this program should not only be a workable design for a fusion plant, but also the exportation of knowledge to the rest of the world, for a price off course.

I think these suggestions are in correspondence with the party program. What do you think about these points?

 

[unmerged(3748)]

I would like to congratulate the Liberal Democracy on attaining the requirements for official status. I hope we can continue our cooperative dialogue as soon as possible.

In the spirit of attaining the maximum possibility to have a favorable president on the top seat, we suggest that we field a common candidate, in the person of Mr. Murmurandus of my party. I do hope that does not interfere with your party's presidential plans, but rest assured, you will not be neglected: We would like to form a government in which:
- RD holds the presidency
- LD gets two ministries of choice, including the vice president (who is one of the ministers)
- RD gets one or two ministries, depending on whether other parties would support our candidate.

What are your thoughts on cooperation concerning the parliamentary elections?

 

[Apebe]

I must say I'm outraged by the behaviour of members from other Parties. Them jump in our HQ just as if this was the next Bar to go to. And now we hear that the RD already deals for us and tries to force us to give up our candidate ! We even get some number of ministers even before the election. Don't they have any respect for the voter, for the citizen ?

If we have to go in coalition, we would deal with Ideas and our Program.
This is for both cases, RD or FR.

Future posts from FR/RD will have to be sent by PM first, otherwise they will be deleted.

 

[Apebe]

I just received a letter from S. Fitzpatric and we accept the apologies from the RD.

here is the letter :
Hello,
I would like to extend my apologies for my so-called intrusion into your party headquarters. I merely assumed, that in the light of recent promising exchanges between our two parties, it would be appropriate to make a clear offer of cooperation for the presidential elections. Also, recent rather positive responses and contacts between our parties gave me the impression of being welcome in your headquarters, just as you and your members are in ours.

It is a simple fact that with the current foothold the FR has, it will be very difficult to achieve a majority if both our parties field a candidate. Therefor, all i wished to do with my last post in your headquarters, was make an offer well in time for a cooperation. It wasnt meant to be set in stone, it wasnt meant to override a joint policy, it was just a signal to show that we are serious about cooperating with Liberal Democracy. Naturally, we would have to sit down together and construct a common policy, some main issues that we wish to handle as soon as possible. For that purpose, I started talks under the header "Coalition for Eutopian Progress" and kindly invited the LD to partake, but I did not see any interest.

To answer to mr. Fitzpatrick:

If we didn't give more 'official' attention to possible coalition in the forthcoming elections, it is simply because we weren't registred. Now I can say both options are possible. We can find common groiund with both the FR or the RD. Don't forget also that the LP needs only one more candidate to register. We would be close to them too.

Before entering in a new coalition we will carefully examin which option does allow us to complete most of our election program.

Mr. Fitzpatrick : I think you would be a great addition to our team, since I think your economical views are much closer to ours than to the RD. On social views, you could even go further with us.
(Mr. Hughbartlett will be in charge ).

We are truly Liberal. We truly love Liberty.

 

[Besuchov]

I must say how pleased I am to see how our party now has grown to maturity and I would like to extend a warm welcome to our new members. I am honored to see that my party wants me as their presidential candidate.

I agree with Mr. Patrik that currently Nuclear energy has no equal in combining effiency/low emissions. We need to consider how to solve the waste problem though and also strive to find even better future sollutions.

 

[Besuchov]

On the presidential election: It seems that there is only one ballot for electing the president. That raises questions that we should think about. Do we belive we can win? If not, who do we think will win and if we don't like it is it worth the risk or should we support another candidate? Presently is seems a bit difficult to predict the outcome since there are a lot of people not members of any party.

On the parliament: I agree that it is to early to start talking about coalitions. There is an election to be held and we shall see which parties gets how many seats. When that is done we will find out which government alternatives seems likely and if we could be a part of them. However I stop by "Coalition for Eutopian Progress" and make our stands on different issues known if that is ok with the party.

 

[hughbartlett]

Personally, I think the offer from Mr. Fitzpatric is a good one; and as I believe that we would steal votes from them and they would do the same to us, we should work witht hem, because they are close to us in social policy, my corncern with the party. What I suggest however is that Mr. Besuchov become first on our list, and Mr. timothy second, as I will be away for part of january and this may hinder my ability to serve as an MP, although I could stand aside at that time and give it to our next on list, if you would prefer.

As head of our social policy wing, and as a member of our party, I cannot see how we could work with a party supporting the death penalty or abortion, like the LP or FR. Although the RD is not similar to our econmic views, under this proposal we could ask for the finance portfolio as our first choice in the ministries.

And congrats on party status everyone!

 

[Apebe]

We will status on presidential election later on when hopefully more players have join the game.

For government alliances I suggest we focus on our program :

If we ally to the RD we should demand
- Privatizations of major Public Companies
- Get Nuclear Energy Program Launched

(...) to be continued

If we ally to the FR we should demand
- DP abolition
- abortion right untill 11th week

(...) to be continued

That is what we should focus on, not how many seats we're going to get. We're in Politics to get things changed, not to earn warm money in comfortable seats...

 

[Apebe]

We shouldn't stop looking for new members now we have reached registration.
Our Program is interresting and a big challenge for the future.

If Eddie Teach could drop the FP to join here it would be great.

 

[hughbartlett]

Originally posted by Apebe
We will status on presidential election later on when hopefully more players have join the game.

For government alliances I suggest we focus on our program :

If we ally to the RD we should demand
- Privatizations of major Public Companies
- Get Nuclear Energy Program Launched

(...) to be continued

If we ally to the FR we should demand
- DP abolition
- abortion right untill 11th week

(...) to be continued

That is what we should focus on, not how many seats we're going to get. We're in Politics to get things changed, not to earn warm money in comfortable seats...

I can agree with both proposals for each party, but if you read the free republicans party paper, you will see that they are firmly pro death penalty. From what I know, if mr. timothy can assure the members of the RD that nuclear energy is safe for the environment, or at least safer then fossil fuels, they will be alot more open the the fr for coalition talks...

Personally, at this stage I don't believe we need these talks, but if we do not gain in support it may be a good idea to go into talks with the RD, as they have the most similar social policy, or the LP as they have the most similar economic policy. In my capacity as head of our social policy wing, I would prefer either to stay as we are, or to go wih the RD.

 

[Apebe]

The LP will probably disappear soon. The FP has been created recently by another ex-LP and he the closest to us. We have to wait to see how things evolve....

 

[unmerged(4007)]

Just a hint, I doubt either the RD or ourselves is going to break our platform for a smaller party. So asking for a change to either platform is overreaching. The RD is not going to alienate it's own members to bring in yours any more than we are. Also politics is a process of compromise, especially when in the weaker position, one who can take the victory one has instead of trying for the unattainable will be far more successful. There is room to move towards your agenda on our platform. Keep that in mind.

 

[Apebe]

this is continuing ....

We don't break in your headquarters ... at least you could ask if you want to make an anouncement.

We won't be negociating Gov. Seats but Ideas.

 

[Apebe]

Concerning Nuclear Energy :
we must stop fuel energy emmissions which endanger gravely the atmosphere and increase earth temperature.

Nuclear Energy is the only one that offers an alternative. We must learn how to treat nuclear wastes and therefore finance a research program (opened to private investments).

 

[unmerged(3748)]

Submitted with Mr. Apebe's authorization

First, I would appreciate it if Mr. Galloglaigh would speak for his party alone, and not for Rally for Democracy. We are always open for talks and dialogue, as we truly believe that politics is about compromise. If, like Mr; Galloglaigh does, one speaks of compromise as "breaking your platform" or "alienating your members", I dont think that person has the right attitude for politics.

Second, I am pleased to see some sentiment arise in LD that suggest we might be able to work together for the presidential elections. I would like to restate that the reason we came with seats before ideas is twofold: firstly, we wanted to be as clear as possible from the start, and secondly, we believe that the compromises on ideas will come naturally if we first form a basis of understanding so we know where we stand.

Third, privatizations is a topic on which you can find an interesting discussion in the Coalition for Eutopian Progress - We would appreciate your party's insights.

Fourth, I believe we can reach an agreement on nuclear energy without any problems.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely,

Sebastian Fitzpatrick
Rally for Democracy

 

[Apebe]

I would like to suggest this logo for the party :

 

[unmerged(4130)]

I decided to go into party politics and the LD seems just the right one. I wonder if I can join?
I could do some economy or even foreign policy (but no defense), but something I would really be intrested in is inter-party relationships. This is vital for a 3rd party in my opinion.

rOver

 

[Apebe]

Dear rOver,

You are welcome in this Party. We haven't settled any Inter-Party specialist and actually we are glad you're proposing.

Our Position is still open, since we chose not to go in pre-election alliance. Nice and tough work for you then .
Just remember, we fight for our ideas and for the voters, not for golden seats around the president.


Apebe / President of LD.

 

[unmerged(4130)]

Actually I'd like to propose a strategy for the Presidential Elections.
First, I don't think we need our own candidate. Unfortunately, he or she would stand no chance. Rather we should wait and see who the other main parties propose and on what platform will they run on. Then we can decide who we want to support as a party. This way we can wield the highest possible influence in the Presidential race in my opinion.
This means however that we get no promises on ministerial seats. But if the President wants a majority in parliament s/he will have to deal with us anyway (hopefully).

Would this strategy be acceptable to the party membership?