[Zagadka]

Let me remind all of us that the SLD occupies much of the centre 50% of the spectrum. The only majority coalition that's possible without the SLD is one consisting of ALL the parties to the 'right' of us, all the way out to both LC and PoP.

Precisely, which is why we should not compromise our principles.

[Oxymoron]

Dont overplay your hand.

[Falx]

Or join mine and don't worry about compromising on anything.

[Oxymoron]

You are a traitor Falx, and so is Joe Falx your party only wishes to bring back the old regime. The New Pofo times has exposed your little plan.

[Gnote]

Falx's party stands for nothing whatsoever. It can scarcely be called a party.

[Falx]

I feel the love, and I love it.

[Zagadka]

No, Falx's party is not cohesive enough. It does not address most issues.

We are better off staying together to not overplay our hand, to borrow a phrase, and work from there.


EDIT

Falx, I would request that you avoid further derailment in the official SLD Party thread so we may discuss our own business without constant spam, to use your own word.

[Doomhammer]

No, Falx's party is not cohesive enough. It does not address most issues.

The THP does not require absolute rules... it only needs the wisdom of its, to put it bluntly, enlightened, party members to provide utilitarian services for the Parliament and the the great silent majority of Pofoers.

[Falx]

Falx, I would request that you avoid further derailment in the official SLD Party thread so we may discuss our own business without constant spam, to use your own word.

Ask and you shall receive just so I'm not totally useless latest election tallies:

Code: Select allCA   7
PNL   13
PUC   13
SN   15
POP   4
SLD   16
LC   7
RF   8

[Dave]

Falx, where's your party in that tally?

[Infidelis]

It's so useless, he doesn't even count it!

[Doomhammer]

THP 12

I believe

[ingliz]

13 votes

[Zagadka]

The THP does not require absolute rules... it only needs the wisdom of its, to put it bluntly, enlightened, party members to provide utilitarian services for the Parliament and the the great silent majority of Pofoers.

... I'm taking bets on how long before the party starts infighting once votes start going against each other and seats have to be handed out.

Now please, go to your own thread. You've just completely lost my interest in jumping parties.

[Gnote]

We need to discuss our current philosophy toward the proposed coalition with the right wing.

Where does our membership stand on this matter? Are we willing to make substantial concessions to smaller, radical parties to form a coalition?

[dilpill]

I say that we just form a government coalition just for the sake of getting a government in place. We're all just going to vote our conscience anyways on most legislation, so making some big coalition platform where all of the parties concede a large part of their individual platforms isn't really worth the trouble.

[Gnote]

I am completely opposed to that suggestion.

To form a coalition for the sake of a coalition is a ridiculous idea. There needs to be agreement on the broad strokes of a platform. Details are only necessary on key points of contention, but broad strokes are necessary everywhere.

[Infidelis]

This is a position that the socialists have put us in by having no concessions.

From my vantage point, we agree with PNL with very basic ideas...progressive tax, social welfare (could use some flexing), nationalized central bank, protectionism...I just don't see why we can't both give and take to maintain a very pragmatic fiscal/economic policy from both sides.

We don't have to agree on the particulars, those are things that are partisan and should be left for elections.

Much like when SLD was forming, we need to, as you put it, look at the forest.

What broad strokes are we missing?

[Gnote]

Without a GMI, and a shift of focus from economic prosperity to holistic well-being, we don't achieve our fundamental principles of Opportunity or Well-being.

[Ombrageux]

1) We must have a governmental platform before forming a government
To do otherwise is to beg the new government to burst apart at the first misunderstanding.

2) Nothing is possible with the Leninists
The only alternative to a Centrist coalition is siding with the SN-RF. Really, that party is nothing but an alliance of sectarian anarcho-stalinists. They cannot be dealt with until they have split into a radical and hypothetical moderate factions.

3) We must negotiate with the Center and the Right
The only potential democratic coalition is one with the centrist and right-wing parties. As a result I wholeheartedly endorse the a SLD-PUC-PNL-CA Grand Coalition as the only viable option.

4) The House of Democracy
In terms of conceptualizing this coalition's mandate and vision, we must consider the nature of its members. We would form all of parliament minus the Fascists and the Communists. We are all the parties aligned with the liberal democratic Republic. We should call of our government coalition the House of Democracy (or something similar) to emphasize this.

5) We must take our coalition partners into account
We need to treat the PNL and PUC as major parties, together holding weight comparable to our own. This will mean on the whole a fairly progressive economic policy. It leaves things rather up in the air on social issues.

In terms of the fundamentals of our platform:
* Access to free, universal healthcare for all
* Progressive tax regime
* Some level of guaranteed minimum income
* Free education, access to which is on a meritocratic basis

We should not compromise on these.

Negotiating points already broached
* Government funding of medical clinics that perform abortion, but not of abortions themselves (concession to PUC)
* Government funding of charitable institutions, including religious ones (concession to PUC)
* The tax regime (complex, in the works)

There is still a lot of ground to cover, but I am convinced that there is enough overlap between the PUC, SDL and PNL, especially on economic issue, to arrive at a agreement to everyone's satisfaction.