PRIVATE - Old Moderate Party HQ

[von Streusser]

Political Beliefs: Extremism, reactionism, and dogma are nothing on which governments or their decisions should be based. Responsible government requires free-thinking individuals willing to assess any given situation and decide independently what is the most rational and constructive course of action. Blind obedience is a terribly destructive force.

Additionally, all human beings are equal and should be treated thusly, regardless of sex, age, race, economic standing, sexual orientation, religion, or any other factor.

Current Political Goals: To achieve better representation for business owners in Eutopian politics, the betterment of the Eutopian economy, to help Eutopia reach out from her isolationist shell and become more of a player on the world stage.

Positions:
CEO, Eutopian National Defense Technologies
Member, Military Reform Commission
Member, Commission for the Investigation of Membership in the World Trade Organization
Founder, Business Roundtable
Owner, Eutopia Forum Ice Rink
Founder and President, Eutopian Recreational Hockey League

 

[unmerged(4271)]

URGENT!

The deadline for sending in our parliament list is the end of this week!

The Good News! - With many members we stand to win several seats.

The Bad News! - Unless we can convince other parties to throw their votes for parliament this way, we can't seat all the party members interested in serving.

Even with 10-12 votes, will would split the parliament on a proportional basis with the other vote getters, meaning we are looking at 3-4 seats (and 4 might be a reach! )

So, we need to REALLY decide what we want to do......

1) First, let's make it official - I'd like to nominate John O'Floinn as our candidate for President.

2) If the Government Reform bill passes, each party will nominate the person listed #1 on their Parliament list as a candidate for Speaker. Thus, if you do not want to be speaker you should not be #1 on the list. We need to open nominations for our parties candidate for speaker ASAP!

3) If the Government Reform bill passes, we will have 5 ministries instead of four which means there's one more seat to fill. If we enter into a coalition with another party then we will likely have to split these ministries. We could have as few as one ministry or we could have all of them, depending on the power sharing arrangement. If you have any interest in a ministry, let me know!

4) For those of you who have let me know what you'd like to do, Thank you! In order to finalize our list, however, I need to hear from the following people:

• 
  Timothy Wellesford
  Charles Morgan
  Yuber Harding (if he's back in time)
  and our new member Ivan Urvanov

It would be nice to let some of our new members have an opportunity to serve, so if anyone is not interested in a top government position, let me know so I can give someone else a chance. Remember that Deputy Ministries are available, and you can be very influential without any official post as well.

I thought it might be wrong to assume the people in parliament want to stay there, so the new list below is based on:

1) Who has stated in interest in it
2) Seniority (in our party, not since registration)
3) Who has stated they are NOT interested in it
4) Members missing in action

If you are interested in serving in the parliament, or if you wish to move up or down, please let me know. We need to know as soon as possible!

The codes are as follows:

+ = interested
/ = unknown/no expressed interest / ambivalent
- = not interested / missing

President
John O'Floinn

Parliament
1. (Reserved for our nominee for Speaker)
2. Judas Maccabeus + (we can move him down if he'd prefer a ministry)
3. Jack Teano +
4. Michael von Streusser +
5. P. Petrus +
6. Timothy Wellesford /
7. Charles Morgan / (We can move him down if he'd prefer a ministry)
8. Lawrence Chatfield / (But interested after the MRC is complete)
9. Ivan Urvanov /
10. Yuber Harding -
11. Robert Vergocz -

Please note that Timothy and Charles would move up to #4 and #5 if they want to return to parliament.

Ministry Positions
1. Judas Maccabeus (MHSA (not sure which of new ministries he'd like))
2. Charles Morgan (Education, Culture & Tech)
3. Michael von Streusser (asked for last placement)


So, in conclusion....

PLEASE LET ME KNOW ANY NOMINATIONS FOR OUR CANDIDATE FOR SPEAKER OF THE PARLIAMENT!

PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED, MOVED UP, OR MOVED DOWN ON ANY LIST!

PLEASE LET ME KNOW SOON!

Thanks,

Jack

 

[unmerged(4271)]

URGENT!

Caucus Discussion on the Future of the Government

I know I have been operating under the assumption that we would want to continue our successful coalition government, and I believe that President O'Floinn has indicated this as well.

To this end we have chastised coalition partners who have suggested they might leave the coalition.

However our party is a democracy and we try to reach consensus when possible.

Thus, I ask you all, do you want to continue the Coalition to Preserve the Republic?

Pros:
1) The coalition elected an MP president and MP minister.
2) The coalition allowed the MP to help set the national policy agenda.
3) The coalition, if it holds, guarantees victory for the coalition's nominees because of its size and political power.
4) The coalition prevents the royalists from forming a coalition that would give them the leadership of the nation. Remember, it is not just any monarchy that they want, but an extremely powerful monarchy with powers that would threaten citizens' rights and freedoms, not a ceremonical office.

Cons:
1) Coalition work is always difficult because of how different the partner parties are, with very different philosophies and priorities.
2) The Coalition (with 4 partners) limits the number of opportunities for Moderate Party members to occupy key seats in government because of power sharing agreements.
3) Sometimes we must concede and support issues we may not be wild about in order to keep the coalition together.

There are many arguments on both sides of this - one can argue that the greater good is served by the coalition, and though we sacrifice a few things (some bills and some government appointments) we gained the presidency and effective control of governmentment. Another argument is that, though risky, forming a coalition with fewer partners would give us much more power and influence.

I would argue that the coalition HAS let us pursue an agenda favorable to our platform with only a few concessions. But I will admit that some key issues have been left unattended and probably will go unsolved before the end of the term.

I don't want to bias the debate before any discussion but after hearing from you I will express my opinion as well.

Let me know what you think,

Jack

 

[unmerged(10397)]

I have a lot of thoughts on this. Firstly, I do owe quite a bit to the CPR, and will not forget that. Next, I'd like to bring up that this time around we shoulnd't focus so much on making everyone an equal partner. The truth of it is, we aren't all equal in power. The CPR will guarantee us victory, but it will probably turn bittersweet as we run into problems with administrating around the bitter arguments between the right and left and deal with the mistrust surrounding the ESRP. Overall, I am willing to give the CPR another shot.

I'd also like to bring up (though not at the expense of the CPR discussion) the subject of the Topa rebels. I think sending Smith is a fine idea, but I do not want to send Dr. de Vlaminck. He is a knowledgeable man, but I am not sure sending a suspected revoltionary to a rebellious area is the best idea at this point. I'm debating the best way to tactfully say this.

Also, I would like to make a national address to overview our accomplishments, try to send out a comforting message about the Topa situation, and discuss future hopes. I'm drafting it in my spare time, and would appreciate anything any of you could think of for me to add.

(OOC: I'm going to make a national address, which will be in it's own thread. I'm at a loss what to title the thread though)

 

[unmerged(11366)]

Originally posted by Phalanx
(OOC: I'm going to make a national address, which will be in it's own thread. I'm at a loss what to title the thread though)

How about 'Presidential Speech: Topa Situation' or 'Presidential Speech: Topa Uprising' or something of the sort.

By the way, I support 100% the preservation of the CPR.

 

[von Streusser]

Even though it has resulted in some legislation I'm less than pleased with, I think that all in all the CPR is worth keeping around. I agree with John though, that not all parties should be equal partners, they should have the proportion of power the voters decide on when they cast their ballots. I hope that makes sense.

I think a Presidential Address to the Nation [OoC How 'bout that title? Doesn't put a premature spin on things like the term "uprising"] is an excellent idea. If any material comes to me, I'll send it your way, but my brain is totally locked down today, I'm having trouble composing sentences.

I agree we should send Smith and not de Vlaminck, but I have no idea how we could justify it or even do it. We may be forced to send both and just keep a tight watch on de Vlaminck. I don't like advising surveillance on a government official, but, as you all know, the ESRP and I do not even remotely get along anymore, and so I don't trust any of them any farther than I can throw them.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

I've got it! We'll send them both. To hide the fact that we want a close eye kept on Vlaminck, we'll send security forces to protect them, and serve the secret purpose of keeping Vlaminck from doing something we'll regret. They can't deny security, who would want members of the government dead? Well...then again we were talking about the revolutionaries.... but that's not the point. By sending Vlaminck, we'll recommitt the ESRP loyalties and show trustworthiness amongst the government, while also not putting us in horrible risk. However, the second funny things began to happen, like a guard's death, or failure to report back punctually, and I would have them pulled out immediately. What does everyone think of this solution?

 

[von Streusser]

Sounds good to me...all perfectly justifiable, plus we can keep an eye on things. I like it.

 

[unmerged(11366)]

Originally posted by Phalanx
I've got it! We'll send them both. To hide the fact that we want a close eye kept on Vlaminck, we'll send security forces to protect them, and serve the secret purpose of keeping Vlaminck from doing something we'll regret.

You're a GENIUS!!!!!! My congratulations and utmost applause, as well as my endorsement for a million re-elections.

Well, maybe not quite that many...

 

[Arkestra]

Gentlemen;
I received a letter yesterday from a good friend at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, informing me that a senior lecturer there has come down with a serious illness. They have asked me to fill in for this lecturer for a few months, until he either recovers or find a replacement.

I can't deny that I certainly owe this friend a very big favour, and he effectively paid for me to attend the military academy in my younger days, so I have to announce that I am leaving for the UK in a few weeks to cover for the ill lecturer. Incidentally, I will be teaching about counter-insurgency matters. I apologise for the short notice, but it came out of the blue for me as well!

Of course this will mean that when I return to Eutopia, I can pull a few strings and perhaps get a few distinguished advisors to come along to Eutopia and help with some of the more technical issues of army reform, if the government wishes that is.

[OOC: Ok the real reason I'm going to be gone is that I've been selected for a certain Paradox beta test , and it's going to suck up all my free time - I'm sure you'd rather have my efforts devoted to making sure the latest offering is the best possible rather than arguing over military reform in a ficticious republic ]

 

[unmerged(4271)]

(OOC: Lucky Dog! Have fun with it! If you can drop by every so often with an IC postcard from the academy (or to vote !) we'll still have a place for you here!)

 

[von Streusser]

[OoC sweet! What's the game?]

 

[unmerged(10397)]

(OOC: Probably Victoria, unless he's one of those secret people who's involved in making eu3, which can only be played by the moderators and a select few regular people. He'll probably say victoria though, if he revealed the truth about eu3, he'd 'disappear')

 

[unmerged(11366)]

Originally posted by Phalanx
(OOC: Probably Victoria, unless he's one of those secret people who's involved in making eu3, which can only be played by the moderators and a select few regular people. He'll probably say victoria though, if he revealed the truth about eu3, he'd 'disappear')

You mean there is an EU3?

 

[unmerged(10397)]

(OOC: Probably not, but moderator conspiracy theories are interesting to think about)

 

[unmerged(10971)]

(not sure which of new ministries he'd like)

I don't know either. What are the choices?

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Proposed New Ministries

1. MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (MDIA)
Defense
International Affairs
Public Company: ENDTech (Defense)

2. MINISTRY OF TRADE, ECONOMY, AND FINANCE (MTEF)
Finance
Economy
Trade
Domestic transportation (rails and highways, domestic air travel regulation) *
Public works (water & sewer, dams, public works projects)
Forestry, fisheries
Energy & public utilites (regulation of energy and telephone)
Agriculture
Natural resources & mining
Public Company: Recom (Resource Conservation and Management)

* = primarily construction, maintenence, & regulation as is pertains to interprovincial transport and trade.


3. MINISTRY OF IMMIGRATION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT(MILE)
Law enforcement
Coast Guard
Customs
Justice, property and civil rights
Immigration, citizenship
Postal service
International transport
Navigation and shipping
Public Company: Marticon (Shipyards & Maritime Construction)

4. MINISTRY OF HEALTH & SOCIAL AFFAIRS (MHSA)
Environment
Health
Labour
Welfare
Family
Youth
Public Company: Medicure (Health Care)
Public Company: Omnicare (Health Insurance)


5. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY (MECT)
Education
Language
Culture
Communities
Science, Technology
Communication, media (broadcast communications, not telephone)
Sports
National parks

 

[Arkestra]

[OOC:

]

 

[unmerged(228)]

(OOC: I'm just somehwt recovering of a hefty Civ3addiction which has leached my (executive) powers. I think I can manage now/OOC)

No Speakership for me, I have some particular ideas on how to do that, but I will just end up in conflict with everyone.

I want to continue my work for the ATB commision, whether as the MHA (MILE?) an deputy minister or a MoP.

I doubt very much if I want to run for office. I have some very particular visions on how a government is supposed to run, and I think this vision is not shared by the majority of the Eutopian politicians.

On the other hand, now that I'm writing this, I do see some opportunities to 'hotwire' the interaction between a minister and the rest of the political arena.

Mr. Teano, can you please sign me up for a minister position, any but the MHSA?

 

[unmerged(10971)]

5. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY (MECT)
Education
Language
Culture
Communities
Science, Technology
Communication, media (broadcast communications, not telephone)
Sports
National parks

Right there. That's it. Put me down for that.

EDIT: D'OH! It's already taken! Well, I wouldn't mind being a deputy-type-minister...