(Arriving by way of a very tired carrier pigeon)
Mr. Wellesford, I received your e-mail. I believe you may be mistaken as to the CPR position on the speaker. It was agreed that the two legislative officers would NOT be selected prior to the elections. Rather they would be decided afterwards based on voter performance, other appointments, etc.
I have mentioned that the RD has lobbied me to support Mr. Fox, but there is nothing set in stone that entitles them to the position. I think that there electoral performance was impresssive and that may give them an advantage in "deserving" it, but there was certainly no agreement that it would go to them.
A vote for Mr. Fox would be a vote for someone who held the position before, and did a fine job, and is certainly justifiable.
Mr. Lundgren has entered the race for speaker quite late. I am a bit disappointed that he did not announce his intentions earlier, because it appeared to many of us that the CC wasn't interested in the speakership.
Regardless of his late entry however, I think he's a qualified candidate who deserves consideration.
Personally, I would support Lundgren, based on his nomination of Charles Morgan and I to the Deputy Speakership during the last term. His support of us helped raise the profile of the Moderate Party and gave us our first position in leadership, though we had only one MoP.
Thus, there are good reasons to support both Mr. Fox and Mr. Lundgren. Unless President O'Floinn supports one party over the other, based on his VP decision, I would suggest that each MP MoP be allowed to vote his conscience on this decision, rather than following a party decision.
One final note is that we should take the balance of power with the VP into account, though we don't know who President O'Floinn will appoint.
I have heard rumors that the RD would suggest an RD Speaker and a CC Deputy. Though I have already spoken about how I thought the Deputy Speakership was a great position, I don't see that the CC would have any interest in this, and that if they lost the Speakership and the VP that it could greatly damage the CPR coalition.
If I may be so bold, I would think that a CC Speaker, with an ESRP Deputy would balance the parliament between left and right, and an RD VP would keep the executive branch balanced between with the Center and (so they claim 
) "Center-left" in power.
I do not think we should make plans as if we can remove the VP position from a ministry. While it is numerically possible to achieve the votes I think there would be resistance from other CPR partners, and I think there are some good administrative arguments against it.
Example: Without a ministry what power does the VP actually have? Did you know our last VP was ESRP leader Josephus? While you know who he is, based on his party and METI duties, how noticeable was his VP role? A VP with no duties would be a powerless post that few would have interest in.
I think the President
DOES however, have clear appointment power to name Mr. Langley to any key advisory post that he chooses and I think that such a move would, especially if we have an RD VP, help balance the government, preserve our coalition, and give us the benefit of Mr. Langley's dedication and strong work ethic.
I hope you will all consider this points. I remain in France as negotiations are slow (The French seem to go through wine as if it were water). I hope to return temporarily for the opening session of parliament and the Speaker's vote.
Please keep me informed.
Jack
