[Falx]

As I've stated in our party thread the THP will like clarification on how parliament is run. Do these "seat" actually represent people who will be able to talk in parliamentary discussions or just voting power in the simulation with only one person talking for each party?

[canadiancapitalist]

Where do the lobbyists come in?

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Do these "seat" actually represent people who will be able to talk in parliamentary discussions or just voting power in the simulation with only one person talking for each party?

Party leadership allocates seats to members of the party, which represent voting power. The different parties have different policies as to how they vote, but I think most parties recognize conscience and free votes. That doesn't stop a party leader from moving to censure someone who is not in line with party leadership.

[Clausewitz]

The Provisional PoFo Constitution, for the specifics

[Attica]

Party leadership allocates seats to members of the party, which represent voting power. The different parties have different policies as to how they vote, but I think most parties recognize conscience and free votes. That doesn't stop a party leader from moving to censure someone who is not in line with party leadership.

Sounds good.

[Dave]

What are the main differing issues for the PoP and the PNL?

Based on their posted platform...

Economic Platform
Overriding ideology: Corporatism

Opposed. We are a producerist party and strongly in favor of entrepreneurialism.

End the income tax

While sympathetic to this goal, we oppose it as impractical and support a progressive income tax which allows for all investment to be deducted.

Maximize revenue from corporate taxation

Opposed, we favor low corporate taxes to boost international competitiveness.

Institute land tax

Somewhat in favor, we advocate LVT for state and local governments.

Regulate corporate profits

Nationalize key industries

Opposed, except perhaps for defense industries and some "natural monopolies".

Raise tariffs to protect local industry (and end subsidies)

This depends on whether or not the country is fully industrialized, but we do oppose uniform protectionism in any case.

Mandatory union membership for all employees and employers

Not opposed, but we have what is likely a very different scheme.

National union structures integrated into legislature

Opposed

Creation of a new industrial House in the legislature to represent union interests

Opposed

Protect the land and environment for the people

Opposed

Social Platform
Overriding ideology: Fascist

Goes without saying that we are opposed.

Pro Death Penalty
Prison reform (Work camps)

In favor of both of these, death penalty not particularly important to us though.

Anti Abortion unless woman's life is in danger

Our current abortion policy is as follows:

• Partial birth abortion illegal except in case of rape, incest, fetal defects, or danger to the mother's life
• Free abortion available in cases of rape, incest, fetal defects, or danger to the mother's life
• States' rights on all other abortion questions, as the issue is socially divisive

There has been some discussion about requiring a brief waiting period between committing to an abortion and actually having the procedure performed, but this has not yet been adopted.

Institute universal health care

Opposed, but not strongly. We favor universal healthcare for children and mandatory health savings plans (as part of our general program of social insurance through mandatory savings). The state also funds an account for children when they are born so that they start adult life with a funded plan. For those who for whatever reason are unable to pay (and this would be very rare), the state will loan the money. We also have a program to drastically lower the amount of healthcare necessary by improving the lifestyle of the people, particularly in the area of nutrition.

Institute strict limits on immigration
Deport all criminal and illegal immigrants

Strongly in favor

National Service Program (civil or military) voluntary, but a prerequisite to vote

We favor mandatory national service.

International Platform
Overriding Ideology: Armed Neutrality

Points of special interest:[list]
Withdraw all foreign troops
Remove all foreign military bases on our soil
Remove all foreign aid
Withdraw from all foreign alliances, military and economic
Institute a national militia under the National Service Program much like the Swiss model.

We have no particular objection to any of this, although we are more pragmatic and recognize that our national interests do extend beyond our borders and may occasionally require defense.

[Falx]

The Provisional PoFo Constitution, for the specifics

Thank you, now I finally have something to fight against apart from the PUC and SLD.

[Donna]

It seems as though the SLD is only willing to work with PUC. Working with CA and POP appears to be out of the question for them, and talks between the SLD and PNL are currently going at an unproductive rate. Even with a coalition of SLD-PUC-PNL, we still don't have a majority government.

What are the numbers for a PUC-CA-PNL or PUC-CA-PNL-LC coalition? A centre-right coalition may be the only way a government can actually form unless the SLD is willing to work with the CA, LC or POP in a broader coalition with PUC/PNL.

I'd prefer a centrist government (if it's even numerically possible) but it's time get real here (for the SLD).

SLD appears to have no desire for involvement with the SN-RF (props to the far-left for actually being able to get something done, at least). Whether it's ideological or a result of the Demosthenes/Falx shift, it appears to be a dead prospect. The SLD wants nothing to do with the POP (naturally) and the Conservative Alliance, which is problematic because even SLD-PUC-PNL will not cut it for a majority body it seems. They aren't taking talks with the PNL very seriously either. And now, just today, Gahnote has demanded that the PUC should begin to adapt to the SLD's platform! Jesus.. it's the PNL or even CA that Gnote should be talking to. The PUC enjoys such an integral position at the left-centre-right that it doesn't necessarily have to change anything in its platform(s). Either the SLD will work with us in a centrist government that will encompass some of their neo-liberal ideological enemies, or the PUC will go Right without the SLD, leaving them in a fractured opposition with all the bridges burned between SLD and the Anarcho-Leninists.

Do you guys really want the rest of us to give up on the prospect of having SLD in a coalition government? If you're unable to work with centre-right parties and honestly believe that a centrist (!!) party like PUC should change a single thing in our platform, then you're out to lunch.

If this is the case, then count me as willing to work with any of the CA, PNL, POP, LC. The Left just seems too ideologically stubborn, even in moderation.

[Dave]

Many senior members of the SLD have repeatedly indicated a willingness to form a coalition with the PNL, Donald. They have even expressed admiration for some of our policies.

[Fasces]

PUC-CA-PNL-LC-PoP is 49.
PUC-SLD-PNL-PoP is 51.
PUC-SLD-CA-LC is 47.
PUC-SLD-PNL is 47.
PUC-SLD-PNL-CA is 56.

Regulate corporate profits

It means we are in favor of maximizing revenue from corporations, in accordance with the Laffer curve. Whether this means an increase or a decrease is unimportant, but tax revenue must be maximized in order to successfully abolish the income tax.

[Dave]

So in other words, you favor a revenue maximizing corporate income tax, but confusingly describe that as being the regulation of corporate profits?

[Fasces]

Yes, because it would require annual readjustment.

In addition, we would also like to see certain percentages of corporate profits (all income derived after salaries, planned industrial expansion, etc, that would otherwise go to bonuses or dividends) put aside specifically for reinvestment in the local community by the corporation. This may mean anything from financing a local park, or giving an artist a grant to build a statue in front of the corporate office. It is up to the corporation itself, and the local government.

[Sephardi]

High taxes on Capital Gains is incredibly stupid and every economist agrees so.

[Donna]

PUC-SLD-PNL-PoP is 51.

PUC-SLD-PNL-CA is 56.

Thanks for the numbers, Fasces.

Actually, can you crunch every possible majority and perhaps make a thread for it? Maybe everyone simply needs to vote on which coalition they like, lol.

[Fasces]

There is more to life than the bottom line, and this is why both capitalists and Marxist must never be allowed to rule. They see no purpose beyond wealth accumulation or redistribution. They forget that a human spirit exists, a societal spirit exists, and both must be protected and promoted at any expense.

[Dave]

In addition, we would also like to see certain percentages of corporate profits (all income derived after salaries, planned industrial expansion, etc, that would otherwise go to bonuses or dividends) put aside specifically for reinvestment in the local community by the corporation. This may mean anything from financing a local park, or giving an artist a grant to build a statue in front of the corporate office. It is up to the corporation itself, and the local government.

Large and even medium corporations tend not to be organic to a single community. You would be better served to favor an economy with a large number of small businesses and family-owned businesses. More political decentralization would also give local governments the ability to make such investments.

[Oxymoron]

They forget that a human spirit exists, a societal spirit exists, and both must be protected and promoted at any expense.

Even at the expence of the Human flesh?

Human spirit sounds nice and romantic but what does that actually mean?

[Fasces]

In that case they may choose which local community they operate in in which to invest that year, to be rotated on an annual basis upon the completion of projects.

Even at the expence of the Human flesh?

Human spirit sounds nice and romantic but what does that actually mean?

Philosophy. Art. Culture. Identity. Family. Love. Relationships. Music.

There is more to man than the value of his labor and the net worth of his assets. There is the very essence of what humanity is, and governments first, and only priority should be to nurture and protect that. The economy should be seen only as a tool through which humanity may be cultivated and cared for, not an end in of itself. What good is economic growth on its own? What good is wealth?

[Oxymoron]

There is more to man than the value of his labor and the net worth of his assets. There is the very essence of what humanity is, and governments first, and only priority should be to nurture and protect that. The economy should be seen only as a tool through which humanity may be cultivated and cared for, not an end in of itself. What good is economic growth on its own? What good is wealth?

I agree with that, but with out a system to value each member of societies labour/idea you cannot create your vision. Capitalism does that quiet effectively and motivates people to work the mission of the goverment is to maintain the direction of that into positive things for society as a whole.

[Fasces]

I disagree. Capitalism fractures. It creates a cult of materialism, where the sole goal of human existence is to derive wealth from the system. How many youth get laughed at by our society, for daring to dream of be philosophers instead of accountants? We need both.

The mission of a capitalist government is to protect the wealth, to serve the wealth, and to accumulate more wealth. For what purpose? Why do we need all this wealth? To get more.

We have become the proverbial dragon in the cave, and I pray for the knight to come and slay us.