|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Oct 25, 2015 18:36:49 GMT -6
I'd like to propose the following (tweaked) policy points as a way of reaffirming the liberal credentials that this party was in part created from. Naturally, there are some bits in this I think we ought to have some discussion on; as such, I believe we should allow 3 days for discussion before moving to a vote. My proposals are as follows:
1. Repeal of the Semi-Permeable Wall (no longer relevant)
2. Rejection of Strike-based Citizenship Law
3. Repeal of Military Governership laws
4. Reduction of Cosa seat numbers to 20
5. Privacy law for information used on private and public sites relating to Talossa
6. Freedom of choice between voting secretly and voting publicly
7. Anti-discrimination law to prevent discrimination against individuals on the basis of whether they voted publicly or privately
8. Revive the Council of Governors to promote greater interaction between our provinces
9. Support a more accessible judicial system for simple disputes
10. Prevent government appropriation of private projects through nationalisation, but where possible provide government support for such projects which need it
11. Set an age minimum of 14 for citizenship applicants
12. Reform of registration fees for political participation, aiming for a reduction to $15 in the Cosa, with the introduction of $5 for Senate candidates
13. Rejection of espionage laws in the Kingdom
14. Prevent automatic access to citizens' e-mail addresses being given to party leaders, and support an opt-in system
15. Slim down government: cut down on the number of departments, bureaus, and even Ministries
I think we should allow for members to call for a separate vote on any of these policies if they can get someone to second the procedural motion to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Oct 26, 2015 7:12:35 GMT -6
What would a more accessible judicial system look like?
|
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Oct 26, 2015 8:08:09 GMT -6
I believe the intention is to make the judicial system easier to understand, and less daunting for less legal minded citizens. It's a broad stroke policy designed to provide us with a lot of freedom in designing an actual bill to make changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Oct 26, 2015 17:03:44 GMT -6
Davis's latest bill gazumps Plank 12, suggesting a registration fee of $10, and I'm in favour of that.
I'm still not a huge fan of allowing the public ballot at all because it artificially inflates RUMP votes, so I'm not a fan of 6 or 7. I agree with Txec's wish for more details on plank 9.
My biggest issue is plank 10. We need a state-run official discussion forum. We're having the new Túischac'h sued because some people don't think Witt, as a private forum, is a place where announcements can be considered public. And we can't have the King playing fast and loose with people's Witt access, as he did in the ESB drama. I don't care about any other projects, but we need a state web-forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Oct 27, 2015 16:16:31 GMT -6
Anyway, I'm not sure whether to propose this here, or elsewhere, but I do want a plank about limiting the influence of the King over the democratic process. Even those of us who are still monarchists of some kind should agree that the King has too much influence over the various branches of government. I'd actually prefer if the Seneschál were elected by the Cosâ, German-style, rather than appointed.
If we have to have a King, I would prefer he be restricted to functions of preserving the Constitution, emergency umpire in case of constitutional breakdown, and handing out feudal-style honours. But you know what I really think about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dien on Oct 27, 2015 23:35:25 GMT -6
I recognize I'm in the minority here, but nonetheless, I feel I must make a motion that we hold a separate vote on Plank 4 with regards to the reduction of Cosa seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Oct 28, 2015 3:21:11 GMT -6
I think there should be an expectation that ALL our elected officials vote in accordance with the party policy. So I'm in favour of a vote on Plank 4, and then all us MCs and Senators should stick to the result.
|
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Oct 28, 2015 8:31:19 GMT -6
Davis's latest bill gazumps Plank 12, suggesting a registration fee of $10, and I'm in favour of that. I'm still not a huge fan of allowing the public ballot at all because it artificially inflates RUMP votes, so I'm not a fan of 6 or 7. I agree with Txec's wish for more details on plank 9. My biggest issue is plank 10. We need a state-run official discussion forum. We're having the new Túischac'h sued because some people don't think Witt, as a private forum, is a place where announcements can be considered public. And we can't have the King playing fast and loose with people's Witt access, as he did in the ESB drama. I don't care about any other projects, but we need a state web-forum. 1. So what - our policy shouldn't be defined by other people, should it? 2. I'm not about to support a policy just because it specifically targets another party. We've done well so far, and the RUMP vote has fallen without us outlawing public votes. 3. That's all the detail I have. It was proposed originally by Dieter, I think, before he quite and joined the ZRT. 4. Instead of getting rid of this policy, I'd rather amend to exempt setting up a new forum for government business. I'd be very uneasy in this party if we got rid of plank 10. |
|
|
|
Post by Dien on Oct 28, 2015 10:45:41 GMT -6
I think there should be an expectation that ALL our elected officials vote in accordance with the party policy. So I'm in favour of a vote on Plank 4, and then all us MCs and Senators should stick to the result. I'm fine with all MCs sticking to the result, but as a Senator elected by the people, I would not vote in favor of a bill that would reduce the size of the Cosa, nor do I feel we should set a precedent that Senators should stick to. I have in the past, and would continue to abstain on any bills rather than vote Contra. |
|
|
|
Post by Françal Ian Lux on Oct 28, 2015 11:14:51 GMT -6
Just to add to the conversation. What sort of slimming down are we thinking about? Which departments are we thinking of combining/getting rid of?
|
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Oct 28, 2015 11:38:08 GMT -6
Just to add to the conversation. What sort of slimming down are we thinking about? Which departments are we thinking of combining/getting rid of? It's more of a passive commitment to cutting crap wherever we find it. I agree we could flesh this out, but the idea behind most of these is to provide us with a guiding principle. |
|
|
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Oct 28, 2015 19:09:55 GMT -6
Personally, I'm in favour of cutting the registration fee altogether (perhaps over a year or two) and moving to a wholly donations-funded model.
And a plank on a new state-owned forum would be fine by me.
|
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Oct 29, 2015 4:20:11 GMT -6
In principle, I'd prefer for it to be gone, but in practice I'd like for the Kingdom to have some income every year, even if largely that isn't a fixed amount. I'm also worried about cutting it too much - sure, the immediate shortfall after one election wouldn't be huge but over the years it would accumulate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Oct 30, 2015 6:42:38 GMT -6
In principle, I'd prefer for it to be gone, but in practice I'd like for the Kingdom to have some income every year, even if largely that isn't a fixed amount. I'm also worried about cutting it too much - sure, the immediate shortfall after one election wouldn't be huge but over the years it would accumulate. Our opposition would then throw up "mint coins, sell stamps" argument. |
|
|
|
Post by T. A. Zilect on Nov 2, 2015 13:32:45 GMT -6
Have been observing the discussion here. Pretty pleased with the broad thrust of the planks so far.
|
|
