PRIVATE - Coalition to Preserve the Republic

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by Craig Ashley
If you look at your proposal [...]

Actually, "my" proposal was proposal #4.

[...] it would seem every party get's two slots (the RD would get three counting the VP) to the CC's one. That is simply not acceptable.

That's why I asked for clarification. Anyhow, I can understand the CC's reluctance to accept a single position; what I don't understand is your expectation that the RD would accept a proposal that would leave it in a similar position. In fact, the proposal you presented above is a warmed-over version of a proposal that was already rejected several days ago; maybe I didn't make my objection clear enough at the time, but the fact is, your proposal is patently unfair to the Centre-Left/ Left.

 

[Craig Ashley]

How is this proposal unfair? The cabinet is half Left-Left Center. You also have the VP slot. The MP is the only canidate the RD will accept other than it's own, so you are in no position to complain about that. Since the RD would have the VP slot, it is only fair for the CC to have the speaker's chair (not to mention, Lundgren has done a credible job there) and that would have the deputy speaker go to the ESRP. So the parilamentary positions are split as well. Your own party member thinks the CC is weakening itself with my proposal, so how can it be so bad?

Anyhow, I can understand the CC's reluctance to accept a single position; what I don't understand is your expectation that the RD would accept a proposal that would leave it in a similar position.

Because the RD has already insisted the CC abandon any claim to the presidency. It appears the RD is fond of making demands on other parties, but not so willing to give anything to make up for it.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Let me get this straight: you propose that the Centre-Right/ Right get both top spots (President and Speaker) *and* two Ministries, while the Centre-Left/ Left gets two Ministries, the DepSpeaker and, oh yes, the VP - and you expect us to belive this is equitable?

Your own party member thinks the CC is weakening itself with my proposal [...]

I don't share that assessment.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by Craig Ashley
It appears the RD is fond of making demands on other parties, but not so willing to give anything to make up for it.

Right - which is, of course, why the RD has made it clear from the beginning that we wouldn't insist on the Presidency, and why we've made it clear that we are flexible on the other positions.

 

[Craig Ashley]

The RD did not make its position clear from the begining. It wasn't until a few days ago I heard any official word from the RD that they would oppose a CC president (OOC: I have no idea what is said in your HQ ).

You claim to be flexible on the other positions, but it seems your idea of flexiblity is to shove the CC into the smallest box possible.

Also, I must add that your condescending, ivory tower attitude is not helpful. I have tried and tried to treat everyone here with respect, but you continue to make your sarcastic and patronizing remarks. I tried to ignore it, since I know from reading you magazine that is your style, but enough is enough.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

Is there anything that is solidly agreed upon about the various proposals?

 

[hughbartlett]

In reality, the CC must take a smaller portion of the pie then their size allows.

To settle this, I suggest that whoever of Silent Eagle and Mr. Langley scores higher on the presidential ballot becomes Vice president and that the party of the other has the speaker. Of course, both candidates will ask their voters to put Phalanz as second preference.

Can we accept that?

 

[hughbartlett]

We can all agree that everyone gets one ministry, and that we all preference Phalanx for president.

 

[Craig Ashley]

In reality the CC must take a smaller portion of the pie than their size allows? Why? So the RD can feel good about itself? The idea that the CC must give but never recieve is getting really old, really fast.

The RD continues to try to put the CC at an unfair disadvantage. We must be on equal footing with every other major party. Period. That, my friends, is non negotiable.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

As stated before, a big block to successful negotiation is that everyone has a different idea on what positions are worth. This may require a bit more discussion, and all we need to urgently decide on is the presidency, which is impossible to change after voting stops, though ministries, the VP, and Speakers can be worked out (though I'd rather finish it now, so confusion can be avoided and the government can be productive).

 

[unmerged(10397)]

If everyone gets a ministry, the RD gets VP, the CC gets Speaker, and the ESRP gets Dep. Speaker, it would seem fair to me.

 

[Craig Ashley]

I agree, MR. O'Floinn. In fact, that was my proposal.

I would say we need to hammer out at least a rough idea of who gets what before a coalition can be agreed upon. I do favor giving the presidential canidate some leeway as to which party gets what ministry. The President should be able to select who he thinks best for the job, while living up to a basic coalition agreement. Afterall, if the minister and the President have differeing agendas the result is divided and weakened executive branch.

 

[hughbartlett]

Either way, can everyone agree that

a) Everyone shall vote for their parties' candidate, but preference Phalanx,

and

b) All parties get one ministry and One of the following: President, Vice-President, Speaker, Deputy Speaker.

I believe that the CC and ESRP are the 'wings', and unfortunently if either gets more power then the other, it could be a bit harzardous for the MP, and to a lesser degree, RD.

Basically, the MP should hold the most power, mainly because it includes members from all of the political spectrum.

The RD is the other 'middle' party, because we are to the right of the ESRP. However, we do not request the same position as the MP. We are realists, and we know that we couldn't hold a government together without them as the most neutral power.

Mr. Langley, this is not an election about Left/Right/Centre. Its about Monarchy/Republic.

What we need to do is stop a monarchy. If that is the only thing wee do in the term, so be it. We may even dissolve the coalition after we have accomplised this, if it is not working, although we expect it to work as long as people remember that we are not talking left/right/centre.

We have shown throughout this debate that we can get along, disagree, and concede to others. We need to do a bit more of it.

The ESRP is very willing to give up some of what it possibly should have. The RD, whilst more reluctant to, has done so also. Although I have attempted to create a plan were we are equals, it isn't totally possible.

It is time for the CC to stand as one and accept it. Maybe it will last two months. Maybe 2 weeks. But it needs to be done. And we need your support as much as you need ours, the ESRPs, and the MPs.

I undertsand that you want to get the best for your party, and trust me, we want to get the best for ours. But we understand we can't, we just don't have the power. The MP is the lock to this coalition. You have the key. Do you want to open it, and let Eutopia live in a democratic republic? or will you pocket the key, and leave the people imprisoned by the monarchists?

 

[Craig Ashley]

I must disagree with some of your points. This coalition can simply be disolved and we all go back to square one. The cabinet will still be whatever it is we agreed upon. Now the President may give ministers the boot, but he would be reluctant to do that midterm I would think. Secondly, the presidency, the speaker, and deputy speaker are going to be decided and then settled. No changing that this term. So it is important to see this coalition reach an agreement that everyone can live with. Just a few moments ago you, Mr. Bartlett, seemed to agree with my proposal. Did Mr. Melanchthon already change your mind?

You say this is not a left-center-right issue, but Mel has based his arguments on that very thing. Also I have noticed how the RD has taken to calling the CC a wing party. It is true we are the farthest right of the parties present, but I take it as a subtle way to dismiss our importance. There is a big difference between the ESRP and the CC. In the last election, the ESRP had great difficulty in getting votes outside of its established political base (OOC membership), but the CC was the leading vote getter in parliamentary elections. We have a proven track record for getting unaffiliated voters. Also the CC's position on the right "wing," in some ways increases its value, not dimishes it. The ESRP will get the far left. The RD will get some moderate left and some center votes. The MP will get some moderate left and right voters, plus some centrists. The CC will get some center votes, some moderate right votes, and the far right votes. I think it is a reasonable guess that the CC could easily deliver the most votes to this coalition. It's not certian, but a reasonable assumption. As a large, active party, with a proven record for being able to bring in unaffilated voters, we have earned our fair share of the coalition pie. We can settle for nothing less.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by Craig Ashley
The RD did not make its position clear from the begining. It wasn't until a few days ago I heard any official word from the RD that they would oppose a CC president (OOC: I have no idea what is said in your HQ ).

That's a different issue. You claimed the RD makes no concessions; what I said was that, to the contrary, the RD has been very clear on a number of concessions from Day 1, including that it would not insist on the Presidency.

You claim to be flexible on the other positions, but it seems your idea of flexiblity is to shove the CC into the smallest box possible.

Please take another look at my proposals.

[...] you continue to make your sarcastic and patronizing remarks. I tried to ignore it, since I know from reading you magazine that is your style, but enough is enough.

Well, seeing as you are no stranger to the use of sarcasm and condescension, I assumed you wouldn't mind overly much.

But seriously, you reiterate a proposal that is blatantly unfair and was rejected a long time ago; I point out as much; you in turn criticize the RD for not making any concessions, an accusation which has a rather tenuous connection to the facts. So yes, I may be becoming rather direct in response.

I keep seeing complaints that the CC is being treated unfairly. Quite frankly, the *only* party that *is* underrepresented in all proposals (and thankfully, they've accepted that to get the CPR off the ground) is the ESRP; if anyone has cause to complain, it's them, not anybody else.

The CC wants to be put on an equal footing; that's fine, and I believe most proposals floating around try to accomplish that, including my own. What I won't accept is that the CC hollers that it's being treated unfairly, while trying to limit the RD to a single position at the same time. Fair treatment cuts both ways.

This is the balance sheet of your proposal

[color=white][u]Centre-Right/Right        Centre-Left/Left[/u]
President                 Vice-President
Speaker                   Deputy Speaker
Minister                  Minister
Minister                  Minister
Total positions: 4        Total positions: 3[/color]

In other words, the Centre-Right/ Right takes the highest-ranking position both in Cabinet and in Parliament (and an overall majority of positions), while the Centre-Left/ Left is expected to be content with the deputy positions - without any other form of compensation. *That* is why the proposal is unfair.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by Phalanx
As stated before, a big block to successful negotiation is that everyone has a different idea on what positions are worth. This may require a bit more discussion [...]

For what it's worth, here's arough numerical "weight guide" I've been using for myself:

President: 2
VP/Minister 1: 1.5
Minister 2: 1
Minister 3: 1
Minister 4: 1
Speaker: 1.5
Dep Speaker: 0.5

Attaching a numerical value to the different position is, of course, a bit problematic, given that a lot may depend on who holds which positions at the same time etc. - but here it is anyway. Not sure if it's going to advance our discussion, but I hope it will at least give an idea where I'm coming from.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by hughbartlett
a) Everyone shall vote for their parties' candidate, but preference Phalanx [...]

That would quite possibly hand victory to the CRE (we're not using AV).

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by Craig Ashley
You say this is not a left-center-right issue, but Mel has based his arguments on that very thing. Also I have noticed how the RD has taken to calling the CC a wing party.

It is a left-centre-right issue in the sense that in an all-inclusive coalition, all parts of the spectrum should be represented fairly.

As to the term "wing party": I believe I introduced that term. It's not intended to dismiss your importance (I would have used "fringe" for that purpose ), it's simply a positional description. In an ESRP-RD-MP-CC spectrum, the ESRP and CC are on the wings, and the RD and MP are in the centre. That's all the term was meant to convey.


[OOC: by the way, sorry if my character is getting a bit sharp - it's all meant in good fun. ]

 

[hughbartlett]

Originally posted by Melanchthon
That would quite possibly hand victory to the CRE (we're not using AV).

But when our candidates withdraw, Phalanx will win.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by hughbartlett
But when our candidates withdraw, Phalanx will win.

Yes. Sorry, I wasn't sure whether you were operating under the assumption that all others would withdraw. My mistake - carry on.