[Gnote]

Ombrageux,

I think we should wait until we hear the terms they put forth. We're in an asymmetrical position here, as we know a great number of details about what the PNL, PUC, and CA want in a coalition, and very few details about what the SN-RF and THP want. We should at least wait until we can compare the two scenarios before we reject the idea.

[Dr House]

Ombrageux,

I think we should wait until we hear the terms they put forth. We're in an asymmetrical position here, as we know a great number of details about what the PNL, PUC, and CA want in a coalition, and very few details about what the SN-RF and THP want. We should at least wait until we can compare the two scenarios before we reject the idea.

I disagree, you should reject the idea on principle. The SN and RF are insane, and this is coming from someone who personally supports the redistribution of existing fixed capital assets.

[Gnote]

Obviously we now know what the extreme right thinks of being left out in the cold.

[Dr House]

I'm not extreme right in any way.

[Demosthenes]

Demos - You didn't even say what you would personally compromise on. You just passed the buck on whether negotiations were realistic, and then condemned the centrist fraction of the SLD for not working with SN-RF. As far as I am concerned, that is nothing more than a cheap attempt at throwing a monkey wrench in the existing negotiations.

I mean, we can both play this silly back-and-forth game of who screwed who over first and all it will be is chirping back and forth at one another.

If you wanna go ahead and respond with some other cheap shot of your own, by all means, do so yet again. I'll leave it where I have left it at my last post other than to say, when the leadership gets on we will give you something to look at.

[Infidelis]

Ombrageux,

I think we should wait until we hear the terms they put forth. We're in an asymmetrical position here, as we know a great number of details about what the PNL, PUC, and CA want in a coalition, and very few details about what the SN-RF and THP want. We should at least wait until we can compare the two scenarios before we reject the idea.

This is what I was thinking...

I don't know what they want from us or what they'll accept from us, but I'm willing to hear it presented.

Weird and undesirable position we've been presented with, having a majority coalition hinge (possibly) on our support.

[Ombrageux]

I am fine with it so long as this isn't just stalling. The other parties were very open about their terms and issues. The Left is so sectarian that it degenerated, even prior to the elections, into a game of cursing and name-calling. I believe we are probably irreconcilable. But if not, then, please, show us that you would accept our fundamental positions and then, why not? Although I would again voice my extreme skepticism. The SN-RF in its current form is half opposed to 'bourgeois democracy' half opposed to the notion of the State itself. I don't see how any agreement could come about without the defection of a hypothetical 'liberal wing'.

If you think my thinking is so absurd, so unreasonable, then please prove it wrong. Show your terms, and show they are compatible with the form of democracy advocated by our own party. If it were true I would be the first to hail a democratic Left.

[albionfagan]

We are for ultimate democracy, and we have shown that we are willing to participate in borgeouis democracy, surely that is testament enough.

[dilpill]

I want to see what the Leftists will offer us before we offer to be in a coalition with them. Demo has closer ties to the SLD's than most of the other MP's in his alliance, so making any sort of agreement before the other major players in that alliance have said anything would be premature. I've become less reluctant to support a coalition of this sort ever since the hypothetical SLD-PUC-PNL coalition lost the votes we needed to form a majority. Dealing with the CA has been going pretty badly. However, even if the SN-RF alliance put down terms that are acceptable, I have doubts about the support of the THP. I really wish minority governments were constitutional.

--

So, seated members of the SLD so far:
Paradigm - 1
dilpill - 1
Gnote - 1
Karl_Bonner_1982 - 1
Infidelis - 1
Ombrageux - 1
DDave3 - 1
Zagadka - 1
Nattering Nabob - 1
Okonkwo - 1
Party (Empty) Seats (de facto Paradigm) - 7

Anyone else?

[DDave3]

Albionfagan, go away if you don't have anything more to add than petty one-liners.

I'm not sure just how long the SN/RF 'coalition' may last, I can stomach some of the SN policies but the RF lot really are beyond the bale. And frankly I don't see the point of the THP, other than an ego driven exercise - do they have a party platform?

[albionfagan]

Hey, I'm just reiterating my position and what I would hope is the position of my party. We have already shown our ability to compromise.

Don't arrest me now.

Is that allowed, petty 2 liners

Also, isn't it beyond the pale?

[Nattering Nabob]

I really wish minority governments were constitutional.

If we ever seat a government that can be one of the first orders of business...

[Ombrageux]

Having reviewed your foreign policy platform I see a few problems. Although the document is primarily one of tone and definition than anything else, making it somewhat hard to grasp:
* How does one define whether a country is 'elevating the proletariat'? What would we do to promote such countries or hurt anti-proletarian ones? Is the definition of a pro-proletariat country extend to liberal democratic states in which they have an electoral voice? Or only Communist countries? (Those left..)
* How do we define 'defensive' and 'offensive' military assets? As they say, the best defense..
* I am not opposed to withdrawing forces from all places, as a point of general principle, though we do not know enough the nature of the world and our commitments (troops in Afghanistan? Todolundi?) to say precisely. Generally however foreign commitments are pretty pointless.
* I take issue with your policy towards Iran, that country is as likely to be 'imperialist' as you allege the West to be.
* Your policy towards the Korean peninsula is absurd.

Although I see you have already distributed phantom ministries among yourselves, which is rather quaint given your coalition partners would presumably take a large slice of them..

I have not found any recent stuff on domestic policy.

[Gnote]

After suggesting that we're simply trying to stall the centre-right coalition, it's curious that you would engage in the exact sort of behaviour that was hampering those talks in the context of the centre-left coalition.

If we have agreed to wait for the SN-RF to make their proposal, why are we pre-emptively judging it?

[Dave]

SLD, would you be more comfortable negotiating if the PNL presented a unified position from the PNL, PUC, and CA (I'm not speaking on their behalf, but assuming I can work this out) as a basis from which to proceed?

[dilpill]

That would probably be the easiest thing, Dave.

The PNL-PUC-CA and RF-SN-THP should both submit unified platforms, and we will go with the coalition that has a platform we agree with most. (Assuming that we agree with either presented platform)

[Gnote]

I, personally, would be more comfortable negotiating with the PUC-PNL-CA if the socially and economically conservative fringes were removed from it. There is no reason to include such positions in a coalition when such a minute minority of parliament subscribes to them.

[Ombrageux]

I had never guessed you intended to scuttle the center-right talks Gnote, although perhaps I should have given your consistent undiplomatic and provocative behavior. I, on the other hand, am not trying to stall anything. I am looking what we have to work with, and giving my opinions on that to inform the discussion and the SN-RF as to what our likely areas of disagreement will be (and they can reconsider, or not, their position accordingly as they see fit).

I have not agreed to wait for anything. I am open to cooperation with all who are willing to compromise with us on our key issues. I am not open to the sort of vague 'wait-and-see' from a party of Marxo-Anarchists. The onus is on them to prove they are not trying to sow discord among the democratic parties.

Dave - That might be the best way to go, to reduce the cacophony. It would have the virtue of making the SLD's options on the Right clearer, even as we are promised something will emerge on the Left.

[Vanasalus]

We, in THP, would like see a government free from fascist elements.

Therefore, THP perceives a possible rapprochement between SN-RF and SLD for the purpose of forming a governing coalition as a positive development along the way of forming a government that PoFoLand deserves.

[Dave]

The CA, PNL, and PUC (well, half of it) are all socially conservative, so that is not in fact fringe position, and some concessions on social policy would be expected from the SLD. Here it is helpful for all the conservatives to consolidate their positions so that concessions can be quickly and effectively made by both sides.

On economics, due to our syncretic producerist approach, I feel the PNL is in an unique position to offer an economic platform which satisfies the social justice and environmental concerns of the SLD while still incorporating conservative principles of small government and free enterprise. It should then be a straightforward process to secure support with a cacophony of opinions removed.