[PRIVATE] United Moderate Party HQ

[The_Hawk]

Well, if you want to keep the position within the party, I would suggest Pers Tulp or Marine. I would recommend Per Tulp out of hand, except that the possibility of becoming MDIS nearly chased him off of becoming my Deputy. Isn't that right, Captain?

Otherwise, I'm not sure. It's late in the term to appoint someone, and I'm not sure if there's much hope of whomever you select achieving something. In fact, given that, you might consider appointing someone from outside the party... if they fail to do anything with it, it turns against them if their party later wants to insist that we didn't do anything during our tenure.

I wouldn't know who, though. Recyznski is a no, Josephus is a no, and you're not going to get a lot of support from me for Fourgeres. Who else is available? I gather that Per Keller of yours has done good work...

 

[HJ Tulp]

Well sir it's just that I don't want to mess up the Chain of Command. There's a reason it's there
I would personally think that I am incapable of being MIDA. My knowledge on it's subjects isn't much and I don't think putting a military-man in charge of Law Enforcement is giving the right signal.

 

[Amric]

What about Felix Murmurandus? Dr. Keller is a thought, although I have a sneaking suspicion that she would decline. She is an environmentalist and I am unsure how much she would be willing to go into the law enforcement arm of the government.

I think Murmurandus might be a better choice....

 

[Craig Ashley]

I'm not sure what kind of knowledge Murmurandus has regarding infrastructure. And he has a track record for not doing a whole lot in office. As much as I hate to say it, either Recizinsky (sp?) or Josephus may be the best canidates - if we can get them to agree to a reasonable platform for the ministry. We at least know that both of them are committed public servants who will work diligently.

As to VP, Tilly and myself are currently ineligible and would have to resign from the GA to accept the position. I think we are both doing fine work there, so that wouldn't be in our best interest. I was actually going to have Minister Talbott join us in the GA, as Prof. Glasser has been rather inactive. But he seems to be the most reasonable choice for VP at this point.

Another possibility regarding Vilms' former ministry is for you to promote your deputy MHES to full MHES, and for to take the ministry of infratstrucre over directly, Mr. President.

Also, we need a party deputy chairman, as Glasser has been inactive. I'm going to appoint Hawkton Tilly. He represents roughly the same side of politics as Glasser within this party and is certainly active. Hawkton, if you have a problem with this, let me know, but for now you are the deputy chairman.

 

[Amric]

Hell, Jake...I don't know squat about infrastructure either, to be honest. MESA is really where my strengths lie, unfortunately. I might have to approach Dr. Keller about MIDA...or perhaps I will have to look elsewhere...I would rather not have Josephus in a ministry position. And definitely NOT Reczynski. His inability to toe the government line is far to volatile for my taste.

I'm still thinking on it.

 

[HJ Tulp]

What about asking people to solicitate offering a agenda and plans for legislation?

 

[Amric]

Well, PG, are you interested in being the Vice President?

 

[unmerged(24249)]

Hmm excuse me, I think I missed something, what is our current ticket for senate elections?

 

[Craig Ashley]

Hmm excuse me, I think I missed something, what is our current ticket for senate elections?

OOC: Check the various Senate campaign threads.

IC: Gentlemen, I think we are nearing the time when we should discuss the future of this party. I know it was originally created as a temporary bi partisan organization set to last for one term. However, since then Per Vilms has tragically passed, Per Glasser and Per Sova have left the political scene, and Per Al'Aeshir has mentioned that he may be retiring. That leaves Tulp, Tilly, Marine, Talbott, Wellesford, and myself - not exactly an enormous bi partisan group we started with. Now some of us lean a little more to the left and some lean to the right, but we are all relatively moderate.

We could decide to keep this party together. If we do, we would need to discuss a more comprehensive platform and philosophy than we currently possess. I'm just bringing this up and curious to see what everyone's opinion is.

OOC: With Amric retiring his current character at the end of the term and Glasser and Vilms dead or inactive, the UP is no longer an electoral juggernaught. Therefore it is no longer a political monopoly that would be detrimental to the game, so I think its fair game for us "survivors" to discuss staying together. I wouldn't mention this if the UP had maintained its enormous strength, as it is unbalancing to the game.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

...That leaves Tulp, Tilly, Marine, Talbott, Wellesford, and myself...

*COUGH*

 

[Craig Ashley]

My mistake, John. Obviously you're still a part of the party as well.

Your thoughts?

 

[unmerged(24249)]

Actually Jake, I am a bit afraid about future of this party if we won't concentrate on to things to which solutions are accepted widely, I do not consider my own opinion moderate, so I think that I might get into argument with rest of the party more than often, for example with Mr. Tulp who I know as liberal, since I consider myself right wing politician, some claim that I am "extremist" and few mud throwers claimed I am "reactionary".

 

[HJ Tulp]

This is quite amusing actually. Mr Reycniski or whatever invited me to the UEF as he thinks I'm one of the more conservatives of the party
If this party goes on then I will not abandon it.

 

[The_Hawk]

I have to assume he's distributing form letters, since he sent one to me, too.

Jake, I was thinking much the same, but I didn't want to be the one to suggest the transformation of the UP into a new moderate party. However, I feel quite divorced from each of the other parties, each of which (with the possible exception of the ESA) has the same failing that caused us to create the UP in the first place -- lack of real experience. Most of a term has ticked by, and Recyznski still has yet to create a piece of draft legislation I consider even remotely passable; the ESA hasn't presented any at all.

I would, however, suggest that we should recreate ourselves in name if not necessarily in membership; otherwise we will be violating our pre-election promise that the UP will be a one-term thing. At the same time, we may want to parley our transformation into a claim of success; assuming we get a budget passed, and as soon as I get my Two-Term Plan for the restoration of our military written up, we will have succeeded to a greater or lesser extent in the four key platform points we were elected on, no matter the rhetoric of the other side(s).

 

[Amric]

I think Hawkton does bring up a good point. Yes, I am going to be retiring from politics for awhile.<OOC: Retiring the character as well. But NOT killing him off>

 

[Craig Ashley]

Hawkton, I brought this up because I feel the same as you do. None of the existing parties seem like a place I could hang my hat. ESA is far too left, UEF is too far right, P4P is showing some promise, but I think they'll end up further left than I'm comfortable and I'm leery of any enterprise that has John Kenny is a position of leadership.

We would need a new name and a new, more philosophical platform. Something that emphasizes our common beliefs.

Mr. Marine, you are easily the furtherest to the right of any member of the UP. However, myself, Talbott, and the late Vilms were all widely associated with the right and conservative parties. If you're willing to have a party whose platform doesn't consist of everything you personally believe, then you could still fit in. Essentially, we will have to agree to put aside certain issues that cause division among us. I'm not sure what those issues will end up being, but we can figure that out.

Of course, I'm not saying an individual can't go out and attempt to further his point of view on said issues, only that he can't expect the full support of the party on said issue.

 

[unmerged(228)]

I'm afraid it wouldn't be a good idea if I entered the discussion about how to continue with the UP. The last term was quite taxing for me. I have no doubt that I can continue with the Term IX speakership, but I intend to take a sabbatical next term. So I will leave this discussion to those with an eager mind.

(OOC: I can't log in as often as I want to, so it's time for me to take a step back. I will keep the character though, and will vote in the elections and read the newspapers, so some of my comments should pop up./OOC)

 

[HJ Tulp]

I have no trouble with continueing the party but why should we change the name?

 

[The_Hawk]

I have no trouble with continueing the party but why should we change the name?

Two reasons. First, we made it a point of honor that the Unity Party would be a one-term organ when we were campaigning, and reneging on that promise now would not endear us to the electorate. Second, the primary raison d'etre of the Unity Party was that we were a practically-oriented, rather than ideological, party which had formed with the goal of solving immediate problems rather than characterizing ourselves as 'right' or 'left'. With the end of this Term I think we will be able to say we have been at least fairly successful in dealing with our four primary platform planks. Thus, with the immediate practical problems resolved, the logical question is why one would continue to back such a horse which has no unifying ideological agenda. A name change thus serves to refocus our party's underpinnings.

That said, I would have no problem playing off any political capital we have (hopefully) gained when selecting our new name. United Moderate Party? Moderate Party for Unity? Even the New Unity Party, perhaps? Something to tip our hats toward the old while still incorporating the new.

 

[HJ Tulp]

Could someone with legal experience please take the Headscarf case to the High Court?