Moderate Party Communication Thread

[unmerged(6657)]

This thread will be for all formal communication with the Moderate Party. All opposing party members may visit this location to send messages, offers, and requests. Thank you.

OOC: Please regard the other Moderate Party thread as our headquarters thread.

Moderate Party Profiles

 

[unmerged(6657)]

I have noticed that there are a few new citizens who have not declared political affiliation. The following is the party's mission statement, and positions on a few key issues. Thank you.



What does the Moderate Party Believe?

The Moderate Party believes in a policy of dynamic conservatism, defined as a deep belief that the government has a role in providing for the protection and welfare of its citizens, but that government must act wisely and prudently, not engaging in reckless legislating or spending.

Government is inherently neither good nor bad, but a tool that can be used well or poorly. We strive to make sure that when it is used it is used responsibly.

Public policy should be results-driven, not ideologically driven. Eutopia is a well-governed, healthy nation and its strength should not be threatened by radical change that could upset what we have accomplished. The government should constantly look for ways to improve the lives of its citizens, but must be able to show that the benefits of change outweigh the risks of change and change simply for the sake of change shall be rejected.

What does this mean in terms of specific policy?

* The Moderate Party condemns the use of violence as a means of political expression. Freedom of speech, expression, and assembly are all treasured rights, but the willful damage and destruction to property and threat of violence against fellow citizens is abhorent.

* The Moderate Party supports the current constitutional republic and opposes rewriting the founding documents of our nation in order to restore the monarchy. All men are created equal and their success should rest about their abilities and their deeds. The best government is one that is not only chosen by the people but is regularly held accountable by the people and can be changed by the people if it fails in its duty to them.

* The Moderate Party supports pragmatic public policy over ideologically driven crusades. Proposals for change should be judged on a case by case basis to determine if they are cost-effective. Obviously some causes will serve a greater purpose that overrides a cost-benefit analysis, but others may have several hidden costs that could burden Eutopia for years if not corrected early in the process.

* The Moderate Party supports legalization of abortion. Persons seeking abortions will get them whether they are legal or not, so the government should ensure that the abortions will take place in a safe, sterile, environment. On the other hand, we should allow for education programs so that persons may be counseled so that they are sure of non-abortion options, as regards to pregnancy. Of course, changes should be incremental.

 

[stnylan]

Dear Sirs

You say that the Moderate Party is not ideological, yet your first principle is a prime example of ideology. One I embrace, but I do find it a curious juxtaposition. However, I do have one concern at your party's stated aims which I hope you can answer.

Where is your moral standing point? I ask this because if one operates in a moral vaccuum there are certain risks that I am certain people as intelligent as yourselves can understand. For example, I personally do not agree with the ESRP, but I can understand them to some degree precisely because they operate from a very clear moral stand-point. I suppose my real point here is one of trust. Given that one of your members has shown a remarkable little trust to the voters who voted for the CC how can a voter like me trust you?

For general information I do not vote for Mr Charles Morgan in the elections. His recent actions offend me from reasons of simple dignity and duty. He was elected as a member of the CC. In our current party-orientated political system his actions actually deprived people of their democratic choice - however he so chooses to dress that up. You can, I am sure, therefore appreciate my concerns.

Yours faithfully
Professor Karitas Smith
School of Ancient History
University of Jacobia

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Dear Prof. Smith,

Thank you for your letter. I believe you are referring to our statment "Public policy should be results-driven, not ideologically driven." This is not to say that we do not have an ideology, surely we do. What we were trying to communicate, I believe, is that we are seeking the "greater good", that is the best end-result for the people and our nation.

Why we have chosen to phrase it this way is that we want to make it clear that we believe the realm of public policy is too complex to be neatly packed into an ideological catechism.

We do not believe, I would argue, that there is a code of absolutes that should be adhered to in the face of evidence to the contrary. For example, there are some policy functions best served by a government role, and some policy functions that should not be assumed by the government. These should be judged on a case by case basis, rather than viewed in the light of "all government programs interfere with personal freedom and should be abolished" or "government, as the servant of the people, should assume control of all aspects of society to protect the people".

In terms of moral standing point, each man must be judged individually, but collectively I hope that the Moderate Party will be seen as reasonable, rational, and fair. We seek balance between liberty and security.

You mention the case of the ESRP, and while I have many friends over there, I don't feel that they have the moral highground over us just because they are "very clear". While their goals of increasing wages, worker safety, and improving the plight of the common man are highly commendable, the revolutionary tactics they endorse, in our view, are not acceptable. That is, the good that they seek is outweighed by the harmful (in my opinion) tactics they employ. We might seek some similar results as the ESRP but would pursue them through different tactics.

That noise you hear in the background may be some more outspoken partymembers asking "What? Seek the same goals as the ESRP?". I use that as just one example, but let me clarify. For all of their argumentation back and forth I think Charles Morgan and the ESRP both support the establishment of a fair minimum wage. There are various positions held by the many political parties that we can point to as commendable and others that we would see as harmful.

You make personal reference to one of our party members that I will respond to, but I do not wish to put words in his mouth. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I would characterize the situation differently.

In my view, Mr. Morgan's had been an active and responsible member of his former party, however that party experienced a signficant shift in ideology. The platform and beliefs he expressed, while representative of the old FR were, to put it politely, not given the same priority under the new party.

If I believed that Mr. Morgan had joined a party toward which he had no ideological affiliation or sympathy, simply as a vehicle to run for President, then I might agree with you. However, I think this was a case of the party leaving Mr. Morgan and not vice versa. I do not believe that there was any sinister plan to "dupe" Eutopian voters then jump ship. It seems to me that post election rifts grew and when it became clear that he was no longer welcome, he decided he could best represent voters sympathetic to his beliefs by joining another party.

Forgive the length of my reply. I appreciate your concern over this unfortunate controversy and have tried to answer your questions in full.

Sincerely,

Jack Teano
Chairman, Moderate Party

 

[unmerged(228)]

To the Moderate Party:

First I'd like to say that I think there is much to learn from communication between our parties. I hope that mutual contact will improve our chances in the coming (far away election).

However I have some concerns about the program of the MP. It seems that the MP doesn't want to make it's hands dirty. What I mean with that is that it seems that the MP will ponder long on a problem without actually providing Eutopia with a solution. Politics is sometimes a choice between the lesser of two evils, and it's better in such a case to choose the one or the other.

That doesn't mean that there is no room for cooperation. The GRIP agrees with your disaproval of ideology as the source for all solutions, and in the end, we agree with your stance on arbortion as well, though we come to that conclusion by other views.

The coming term of the government will be a test for us all. Lets see if we can make a difference.

Sincerely,

Timothy Wellesford.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Dear Mr. Wellesford,

Thank you for your letter. If you could, I'd ask that you please elaborate on what you mean by "not getting our hands dirty".

I would prefer to think of our philsophy as "Measure Twice, Cut Once". I think that rather than simply adopt massive public works projects or social benefits programs, we should first see what our budget will allow.

An idea may be well-intended, but will it in fact result in more harm than good? An example both of us are familiar with is that of the nuclear power plant. I think the decision to say "We'll have a nuclear program" came too soon, before we truly investigated issues of waste disposal, environmental protection, national security, and the effect it would have on existing industry, such as our coal miners. Our party's approach, I believe would have been slower, but wiser.

On many issues, I believe broad far-reaching proposals are being offered without proper debate and examination of their impacts or consideration of all alternatives.

I agree that inaction can lead to stagnation and decay, but change for the sake of change alone is not necessarily a good thing. We need to move Eutopia forward, not backward, and as such we need to be careful stewards of the public trust.

Sinecerely,

Jack Teano
Chairman, MP

 

[unmerged(228)]

Rev. Jack Teano,

I think I can awnser all of your points at once with a single series of comments. When politicians want a problem to be solved, your philosophy of "Measure Twice, Cut Once", is another way of formulating that a politician should do his homework. But all of the analytical powers at the disposal of the government are often insufficient to guarantee with any degree of certaincy that things will develop as the analysis suggests. This is perfectly normal, and we cannot expect policy to hold back when confronted with such uncertaincy. Instead it is better to get your hands dirty, a process I described rather incompletely before. When one implements a new solution, a degree of unexpected problems shouldn't come as a surprise. Things will go wrong, your hands will get dirty implementing policy.

What concerns me is that the MP, upon realising that their calculated implementations still seem to trigger some problems, they will paralyze trying to figure out where their analysis failed. Eventually, this will affect further decision-making, negativly, I'm afraid.

To summarize, does the MP know when to stop analyzing, and when to start implementing policy based upon their (sufficient) analysis? And when considering the MP doesn't have a moral guideline in the traditional sense, will the MP know what to do when things go wrong? Off course they do, but how does this work for you?

Sincerely,

Timothy Wellesford
Founder of the G.R.I.P.

Originally posted by heagarty
Dear Mr. Wellesford,

Thank you for your letter. If you could, I'd ask that you please elaborate on what you mean by "not getting our hands dirty".

I would prefer to think of our philsophy as "Measure Twice, Cut Once". I think that rather than simply adopt massive public works projects or social benefits programs, we should first see what our budget will allow.

An idea may be well-intended, but will it in fact result in more harm than good? An example both of us are familiar with is that of the nuclear power plant. I think the decision to say "We'll have a nuclear program" came too soon, before we truly investigated issues of waste disposal, environmental protection, national security, and the effect it would have on existing industry, such as our coal miners. Our party's approach, I believe would have been slower, but wiser.

On many issues, I believe broad far-reaching proposals are being offered without proper debate and examination of their impacts or consideration of all alternatives.

I agree that inaction can lead to stagnation and decay, but change for the sake of change alone is not necessarily a good thing. We need to move Eutopia forward, not backward, and as such we need to be careful stewards of the public trust.

Sinecerely,

Jack Teano
Chairman, MP

 

[unmerged(10397)]

Mr. Wellesford, I think you midunderstand us. When we're 'measuring twice' we will also be planning for what will be able to be done if and when things go wrong. Recovery plans will be part of our descision making process. If you discover a mistake in a project would be fatal, you would have to try and either take steps to prevent it, stop the project, or find a way to recover if the mistake is made. These things will go into our 'second measure' and I think this strategy is one that will help prevent waste of our precious resources.

-John O'Floinn

 

[unmerged(6657)]

As I have posted at BREWtopia, the Moderate Party will be having a St. Patrick's Day meet and greet here at our communication center. We will be serving traditional Irish Brew, and food. Everyone is invited, and everyine is welcome to learn about the Moderate Party while they are here enjoying the holiday.

Thank You,

D. Yuber Harding


The party will be sponsored by the EUtopia Ractetrack, as well as the New Lancaster Ravens Football team.

 

[Craig Ashley]

I apologize for the lack of any official communications between our parties. Due to your association with Mr. Morgan and in light of the personal issues between him and I, I was hesitant to contact you.

However even if Mr. Morgan is unable to put aside his grudge for the future of Eutopia, I am. I must say, I disagree with certain segments of your platform, but I hope on areas where we share a common vision, we will be able to work together with a spirit of cooperation.

I am curious to see your parties stand on several issues.

1. Minimum wage - As Mr. Teano is aware, I proposed a minimum wage in the Worker's Rights Commission. I plan on submitting that bill before parliament. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

2. Welfare - Should it be reformed and if so, how?

3. Military - Your feelings on modernizing and reforming our armed services.

4. Nuclear Power

5. Election Reform - There are many issues here. Namely the cumbersome process of forming political coalitions, the restricitve membership requirements, the fact that the VP is not elected by the people, and the abilty of rogue politicians to circumvent the will of the electorate by taking their seats where ever they please.

6. Death Penatly

7. So called same sex rights

8. Taxes - as you may be aware the ESRP is floating the idea of a 87% tax rate. Obviously this is ridiculous, but do you believe the tax rate should be changed and if so, how?

9. Terrorism - Specifically a bill that would greatly increase the penalty for acts of terror on Eutopian soil.

10. Gambling - The ESRP recently made a lot of noise about banning gambling or basically taxing it out of existence.

11. Restricting free speech (anti hate speech legislation)

 

[unmerged(10397)]

I think I can respond to a few of these

1 & 2- When I joined ex-minister Teano's commission for social benefits, I was prepared to take a firm stand on Welfare and minumum wage, however, I believe this commission will no longer function with the new ministry.

3- I'm not sure about the party's official stand on this, but I personally think the army should be strong enough to defend Eutopia, but I don't think that we are capable of becoming a world power, so trying won't help.

4- Nuclear power can be a great tool, but only if properly harnessed. Nuclear power should not be taken lightly

5- i don't have a comment, perhaps one of my fellow members would like to take a stab at that.

7- I'm in favor of same sex rights, same as I am in opposition of salvery.

8- A tax increase could be in order, but only if thought about, and with a good plan for what to do with the income. Bankrupting the population just to build an something that serves no purpose at all is not on our to do list.

9- Terrorism is a sin against humanity. Harboring a terrorist makes you a terrorist. Terrorists should be punished heavily indeed.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Mr. Langely,

Thanks for your communication. I would echo many of the comments made by Mr. O'Floinn.

If we can agree to disagree over certain issues and remain amicable, then I believe there are a number of important issues where we can work together for the betterment of Eutopia.

Let me restate a founding principle of our party, which is that the economic and security issues of Eutopia should be the highest priority of our government. We stand in favor of protecting our democratic republic, of protecting our citizens against crime and terrorism, and protecting our economy. Given these basic securities the government should do what it can to improve the basic lot of all Eutopians, but we shun more activist agendas, liberal or conservative.

Specific to the issues you raise, the following issues would be ones of high priority for us:

Taxes: On it's face the idea of a 87% tax rate seems absurd. If the economy is strong, as it seems, what possible justification is there for this?

Let me make this point as strongly as I can make it: The citizens of Eutopia need more information about our economy and our government's budget.

Without such knowledge any talk of raising or lowering taxes is foolish. How are we spending our money? What percentage is being spent on defense? On education? On social welfare?

How can we argue for tax rate changes without knowing the relative health of our government? Are we in debt? Are we running a surplus? Who knows?

Minimum Wage: Let me again thank you for your cogent and thoughtful participation on my commission. I feel that this is an important issue and one the Moderate Party believe should be examined closely and not attempted to be solved with one blanket solution. As you pointed out during the commission hearings, it is very important that every Eutopian earn a fair wage for their labor. Yet it is just as important to be aware of situations, such as family owned and operated businesses, tip-heavy occupations, etc. where special conditions may exist.

I believe we would favor the continued careful examination by a commission with the commitment to produce a workable plan for this year's Parliament to consider.

Welfare: In regards to welfare, this, too, was a subject I had hoped the MHSA sommission would consider - if for no other reason that for a full examination of Eutopia's benefits system.

I have not heard of any complaints with our system of assisted health care, however should we have a system of unemployment protection, job training for displaced workers, tiered welfare benefits that reward re-education and the working poor as opposed to a flat benefit for those who want to work and those who, regrettably may not? I don't mean to avoid a direct answer , but I believe this is a complex issue and we should look at the entire system.

Military: I believe I speak for the party when I say that recent military exercises are evidence enought that out army needs modernization. We have not formally addressed the issue of conscription and there is sure to be debate over the need for such a policy and whether there are more merits to prioritizing the quality of our armed forces versus its size. If there is an opportunity for the MP to work on this issue, we are very interested in doing so.

Terrorism: Addressing terrorism is a concern for us. The discussions we've had have centered on the need for the creation of new law enforcement / security agencies versus simply funding and supporting existing law enforcement resources. I think we would likely support a bill such as you describe but I will bring it before our membership before officially endorsing the legislation.

Gambling: While there is a social concern about those who abuse gambling, concern both for these citizens' welfare and for the effect they have on the state if drawing welfare benefits, we would recognize the basic freedoms of individuals similar to how we permit smoking and drinking.

Funding for gambling addiction programs would be a wonderful service the government could provide, but prohibition is not the answer. Gamblers will simply take their gambling elsewhere, likely to the benefit of criminal organizations.

Specific to some proposals being floated, we support the continued private operation of the Eutopian Racetrack and the owner's right to realize a profit from his investment.



The remaining issues you raise are probably less of a priority for us. We have a broad policy of acceptance of fellow party members' beliefs on social issues which are not directly related to our principal concerns.

I had originally attempted to address some of these, but feel we need more inter-party discussion before making any formal statements. We will discuss these and respond shortly.

Thank you for your communications. I hope that we will find a number of areas of common interests where we can work together for the betterment of Eutopia.

Sincerely,

Jack Teano
Chairman, Moderate Party

 

[Craig Ashley]

I must say that I am very pleased to see your responses. It seems there is a lot of room for cooperation between our parties.

Taxes: I agree we need more information. A breakdown of the federal budget should be made public. As well as knowing the exact financial situation (deficiet or surplus?) But I must say that in any situation, a 87% tax rate is absurd. Such extreme taxes kill any motivation to work.

Minimum Wage: As you know, I have shared my thoughts on many of the issues that a minimum wage would present. If you see any other issues that have not been discussed or unintended affects, please share them with me.

Military: We agree on the need to modernize. Conscription is a sepatate issue, but I believe there are benefits that are not commonly brought to the public's attention.

Terrorism: The CC has also been discussing the creation of a national law enforcemnt agency and a central intelligence department. Both would be vital to prevent terrorist attacks both from internal threats and international ones.

Specifically, I believe that both agencies should be combined and work under one roof. Rivalry and competion of such agencies has plagued othe nations and it has dulled their ability to react quickly at times.

Gambling: I agree completely. I could see a small tax on gambling profits that would go towards funding gambling addiction programs. It is something worth exploring.

Welfare: Again I believe we have similar visions. Job training, work programs and a real effort to help those that need it and not those that seek to mooch off productive members of society, are all reforms I hope to see enacted.

I was saddened to hear you had no interest in returning to your post in the MHSA. You may or may not know that I pushed for Mr. Morgan to appoint me to that position in the event that he was elected president. This did not mean that I was unhappy with your efforts. We have some areas where we disagree sharply, but by and large, I think your efforts were well done and well placed, which more than I can say for the current Minister.

I forsee a spirit of cooperation between our parties and also between you and I, Mr. Teano. I eagerly await your response on the rest on questions.

 

[unmerged(9119)]

Mr. UberYuber, you should now ask "your" MP, to put the porpusale about the new prision, in the Parliament. and also add that ME and the Presidnet support it.


Vasco, I_Killed-Kenny MHA

 

[unmerged(11366)]

If you give me a copy of the bill, I'll propose it.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

PRESS RELEASE

The Moderate Party deeply regrets the unruliness which broke out at the recent St. Patrick's Day party and apologizes to any whom were inconvenienced by the acts of revolution or hooliganism that followed.

We hope that this will not in any way tarnish the reputation we have worked so hard to build and that we can all work together to keep moving Eutopia forward.

Sincerely,

Rev. Jack Teano
Chair, Moderate Party

 

[unmerged(8022)]

Mr. Morgan I only want to remember you on the fact that we supported yoo in your president campaign.

Baron Johan Banér

 

[unmerged(11366)]

Originally posted by J. Banér
Mr. Morgan I only want to remember you on the fact that we supported yoo in your president campaign.

Baron Johan Banér

So since you scratched my back, I scratch yours?

 

[Craig Ashley]

Mr. Teano,

I am pleased to see the flury of activity in parliament and suggest we take advantage of this momentum. I see two very important issues for our parties to cooperate on, welfare reform and terrorism.

On terrorism, I suggest two separate bills. One to create stiff penalties for acts of terror and possibly allow terrorists to held as prisoners of war. After all an act of terror is a declaration of war. A second bill would create a new agency, similar to the FBI and CIA to investigate terrorists. The Intelligence end would serve to prevent terrorist attacks before they happen and the Investigation side would track down and capture those that commit violent crimes against the state.

On welfare, judging by some of the comments you made earlier, I think we have similar visions on how to reform welfare. An emphasis on re-education, work programs, and helping those that want to work as opposed to worthless parasites.

It may be best if each of our parties crafted bills and then brought them to each other. It would give us a starting point and we would see where we agree and disagree. If you think a different approach is in order, please let me know.

Jake Langley

 

[unmerged(11366)]

Originally posted by Craig Ashley
On terrorism, I suggest two separate bills. One to create stiff penalties for acts of terror and possibly allow terrorists to held as prisoners of war. After all an act of terror is a declaration of war. A second bill would create a new agency, similar to the FBI and CIA to investigate terrorists. The Intelligence end would serve to prevent terrorist attacks before they happen and the Investigation side would track down and capture those that commit violent crimes against the state.

The measures you suggest are applaudable and will be a huge step in our war against the evil that has invaded EUtopia. Both measures will receive my full support as a member of parliament. However, I must draw the line at labelling terrorists as prisoners of war. Would it not be better to charge them with treason, or a new charge of 'terrorism' with a whole new set of consequences?

...It may be best if each of our parties crafted bills and then brought them to each other. It would give us a starting point and we would see where we agree and disagree. If you think a different approach is in order, please let me know.

Jake Langley

This is a good idea, and we will begin immediately to start forming our ideas.