|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Mar 31, 2016 20:42:33 GMT -6
Estimats és estimadâs Democrätsen Livereschti!
I would like to hereby open the Party Assembly, a forum for free discussion of the recent election, our party's campaign and performance, the subsequent negotiations on forming a government, and the way forward for the Free Democrats of Talossa in the 49th Cosâ and beyond.
I would particularly like to concentrate comments on the following issues - although feel free to bring up anything that's on your mind:
1) The election campaign. We got to be the biggest party, ending 9 years of RUMP dominance and pretty much forcing all the monarchist parties to gang up against us; but what we wanted was a majority and near to it. What were the successes and failures of the campaign?
2) The "no coalition" demand. Given our experiences of dealing with the other parties, do we think that "no coalition" was a good platform to run on? And more importantly, should it be enshrined as official party policy, or was it just for that last election and we'll form coalitions in future?
3) Goals for the new Cosâ. What should be the priorities for us to fight for as the largest opposition party? My recommendations are: 1) depowering of the monarchy and bringing the incumbent under control, or if he won't get control, easing him aside for a Head of State who will; 2) moving most administrative functions into the Civil Service or Chancery, to stop them being monopolised by politicians and allow more room for non-political service to Talossa; 3) total revamp of Talossa's web presence, starting with getting off of ProBoards.
The debate is now on!
|
|
gv
Party Member
Posts: 104
|
Post by gv on Mar 31, 2016 21:37:34 GMT -6
1. The outcome of our campaign was amazing. It's abundantly clear a convincing majority is for keeping the monarchy. It's crystal-clear we are keen on abolishing it. Ergo, our being the largest party in Talossa is even more amazing.
2. This time 'round, 'no coalition' worked for us. We are able to keep our principles intact. We should keep the idea of coalition government open, but be absolutely clear to each other and to the world the particulars on which we cannot compromise.
3. Priorities for this coming Cosâ imho:
- Nuking the monarch's ability to void constitutional amendments - Nuking the constables, which are merely tentacles of royal power - More on Wittenberg XI and what should be done about it in a future post to be put to this forum as soon as I get done with this post. - I have no comment on moving stuff to the Chancery save two words: do it. - More on John Woolley in another post.
That's all for now.
|
|
gv
Party Member
Posts: 104
|
Post by gv on Mar 31, 2016 21:43:25 GMT -6
Actually, I'll just talk about Witt XI and John Woolley in this thread. WITTENBERG XI It is the longest-running Wittenberg in the history of Talossa. It is also on a platform that could disappear at any time. There is no way we can trust Alexander Davis to be able to archive the thing by way of ProBoards' paid subscription-archiving option. His motives are pure, but I fear our Witt XI archive will be in a state where we will not be able to read it. The only way to ensure our Witt archives are readable for years to come is to archive every Wittenberg thread by hand. vimeo.com/156661865 shows how this can be done, and if we really put our heads, hearts, and time to this, we can have this project done in at least a rudimentary fashion within the next month. *Then* we can say we were the party of action in preserving our history as well as do something amazing for Talossa.
|
|
gv
Party Member
Posts: 104
|
Post by gv on Mar 31, 2016 21:49:31 GMT -6
JOHN WOOLLEY
Daph, have you and John at any time in history ever spoken on the phone voice-to-voice? I know you LOATHE that sort of communication and loathe even more the idea of talking with 'King John', but if you and he cannot do this, Talossa loses.
You and he represent the extreme fringes of the polar opposites of Talossan politics (and world politics), and should you two actually get along in more than one conversation, the small bit of personal animosity that I believe exists between you two (particularly on his part) could very well dissipate.
Talk with John about the difficult subjects that are at your heart of hearts, Miestrâ. Then allow him to talk about his difficult subjects.
As for his nixing that OrgLaw amendment, I think it was because of a number of things. He hides behind legality, but I really think to a small extent he wanted to spite us. Reunision for both sides was brokered and successful not out of any real love on either side for the other, but rather out of a pragmatic desire on both sides to see a then-stagnant Talossa become more interesting, which has taken place.
De jure, Reunision is done. In the hearts of many on both sides, not so much.
It is also clear John LOVES being king. As King, he can be a make-believe prototype of the sort of ruler he wants in real life: a greatly-enlightened despot combined with Queen Elizabeth II with her limited powers. John. the Eastern Orthodox Deacon, is more in love with the past than with the present or the future.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Apr 1, 2016 3:56:14 GMT -6
1. The outcome of our campaign was amazing. It's abundantly clear a convincing majority is for keeping the monarchy. It's crystal-clear we are keen on abolishing it. Ergo, our being the largest party in Talossa is even more amazing. 2. This time 'round, 'no coalition' worked for us. We are able to keep our principles intact. We should keep the idea of coalition government open, but be absolutely clear to each other and to the world the particulars on which we cannot compromise. 3. Priorities for this coming Cosâ imho: - Nuking the monarch's ability to void constitutional amendments - Nuking the constables, which are merely tentacles of royal power - More on Wittenberg XI and what should be done about it in a future post to be put to this forum as soon as I get done with this post. - I have no comment on moving stuff to the Chancery save two words: do it. - More on John Woolley in another post. That's all for now. We are certainly not crystal clear on abolishing it! We take a largely constitutional agnostic view on the monarchy, ardently in favour of reform but a conscience vote on its effective abolition, AFAIK.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Apr 1, 2016 8:24:29 GMT -6
First, the election campaign went quite well I believe. I was afraid it was going to be a knock-down drag-out war of nastiness, however, I believe we campaigned honestly and with integrity. The whole Canun-gate coming up during the election was a major distraction that likely cost us votes and citizens, but it hurt the RUMP even more I believe. I was dismayed at the sheer rudeness of the D'Auribergs (particularly Audrada who once counted among my friends), and the dragging of heels by the king was annoying. I understand his caution, but our nation was in turmoil and we needed a strong leader to step in and the king didn't quite fit that bill. The attacks on actual people in their actual jobs scared me to the point of nearly renouncing to protect myself and my livelihood.
Second, the no-coalition demand was a good move on our part and we did a great job sticking to our principles. I sincerely thought, having been part of the negotiations, that the RUMP deal would come through. I don't know who in the RUMP spiked the punch and caused it to fall through, but I did have visions of a unity government that might help heal our kingdom. I never believed we were going to make a deal with the MRPT but I have been pleasantly surprised that certain persons in the party are FINALLY using the term "FreeDem."
I believe our Cosa goals should include reducing the power of the monarchy as well as approval of the RCOR proposals once submitted to the Ziu.
|
|
|
Post by Iustì Tíçhern Corneir on Apr 1, 2016 10:57:14 GMT -6
The results of the campaign were clearly a success for us, but it is hard for me to determine what we did right in light of the massive bomb that was Canungate. That's one of those Ross Perot moments that make determining what actually went on, campaign-wise, difficult to ascertain. I think the general message of the election--Talossa wants an alternative to the RUMP and is OK with monarcho-skepticism--stands, Im just not sure how much we can take from our campaign strategy this time around and apply it to future elections.
"No Coalitions" was great this time around. I am not sure it is necessary for it to become Party policy, however. I think consonant with our call for a Cabinet of Talents is an equal commitment to being proactive and relevant (not retrograde, like many monarchists), matching the needs of the time with the wisest approach. That may mean a coalition somewhere down the line.
If your Cosa priorities are in order, Id move 3) in front of 2).
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Apr 1, 2016 19:37:01 GMT -6
On "no coalitions" it was a good policy this time, and we were right to stick to our guns despite being urged to consider going back on this promise by some. I'm not sure it's wise to say now whether it'll be a good policy in a few months time or not, and as such I feel we should wait and see how prospective coalition partners in the future might behave before saying yea or nay to the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Apr 1, 2016 20:19:36 GMT -6
I sincerely thought, having been part of the negotiations, that the RUMP deal would come through. I don't know who in the RUMP spiked the punch and caused it to fall through, but I did have visions of a unity government that might help heal our kingdom. Surely the real sticking point was our "no AD" standpoint? I stand by that because there's NO WAY that guy and I could be in a cabinet together without it turning into civil war, but he was trying to get "no Miestrâ either" in so he could square the deal with my own party. It was personalities, in other words.
|
|
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Apr 2, 2016 23:10:14 GMT -6
Anyway. Does anyone have any problem with the concept that - apart from of course keeping the Govt on their toes re: doing their jobs - our big mission for this Cosâ will be keeping up a drumbeat for an accountable head of state? The shape of what comes out of the RCOR will set the terms for how the King's powers might be changed; but I think our "point of difference" is that we are not a monarchist party and we do not think the incumbent is doing his job right.
Or does anyone else have an alternative strategy?
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Apr 3, 2016 11:14:14 GMT -6
I sincerely thought, having been part of the negotiations, that the RUMP deal would come through. I don't know who in the RUMP spiked the punch and caused it to fall through, but I did have visions of a unity government that might help heal our kingdom. Surely the real sticking point was our "no AD" standpoint? I stand by that because there's NO WAY that guy and I could be in a cabinet together without it turning into civil war, but he was trying to get "no Miestrâ either" in so he could square the deal with my own party. It was personalities, in other words. I have little doubt that it was AD himself who spiked the negotiations. We have no real way of knowing what was said in the RUMP secret conclave, however.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Apr 3, 2016 11:15:38 GMT -6
Anyway. Does anyone have any problem with the concept that - apart from of course keeping the Govt on their toes re: doing their jobs - our big mission for this Cosâ will be keeping up a drumbeat for an accountable head of state? The shape of what comes out of the RCOR will set the terms for how the King's powers might be changed; but I think our "point of difference" is that we are not a monarchist party and we do not think the incumbent is doing his job right. Or does anyone else have an alternative strategy? Accountability for the king should be our primary objective!
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Apr 4, 2016 12:55:23 GMT -6
If accountability for the King means making sure he does his job, then that sounds like a good plan to me. I might be a republican, but I respect the tradition of this party in straddling the metaphorical divide.
|
|
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ on Apr 4, 2016 15:53:32 GMT -6
There is no majority for balls-out republicanism, but there may be a majority for a chastened, properly constitutional Head of State, if we can shame some of the monarchist parties into it. But an additional question is whether the current King can 'change his spots'.
We should make it clear that Talossa as it stands is unfair because the King blatantly favours the RUMP first and other monarchist parties second. Note that SUDDENLY he turns up on time and does his job when a government he likes is elected.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Apr 5, 2016 21:28:31 GMT -6
It pains me to say it, but every day the crown rests on the head of that rather affable man from Colorado support for reform grows. It's much easier to point to things that need to change when we can point at the evidence. Before it was just pointing at what could happen, now it actually is happening...
|
|