[Dave]

Nets, the PUC and SLD are not large enough to forge a governing coalition. In fact, even with the CA you would fail to achieve a simple majority. Your coalition will also have to include the PNL, or the CA plus the fascists or libertarians.

[Dan]

Dan, at this point the PUC is negotiating exclusively with the SLD.

You do realize that leaves you with only 40 seats right? That means you will have to negotiate with either the SN-RF or with the moderate right parties of the PNL and CA even if the SLD talks went through. Given the hostile stance of the SLDs to the CA and other right parties, this could throw a wrench in your coalition talks.

You also realize that, although there are some moderates, many in the SLD are in bed with the SN-RF alliance. You would not want to become the enables of an extreme-left coalition now would you?

The simple fact is that the right is willing to be pragmatic and is willing to negotiate, the extreme-left is not willing.

Wouldn't a moderate right coalition be preferable to an extreme-left coalition beholden to the reds and anarchists.

[Cartertonian]

Dan is right to a point - although from what I have seen the SLD is rather recoiling in horror at the Red monster Ingliz and co are poised to unleash.

Unless you have something cunning up your sleeve, Nets, we may well have to hold our noses and look right for partners.

[Nets]

I'm not saying that we won't look right, when the time comes. But I'd rather hammer out a position with the SLD and then look right with them.

[Dave]

Do you not realize that you guys don't have the votes? Come on math whiz, count the votes!

[Ombrageux]

I don't think Nets is excluding a coalition with PNL or CA. I think he is just stating that broader coalition negotiations will only occurs when the two biggest parties of the coalition, PUC and SLD, have come to an agreement.

[Nets]

Bingo.

[Dave]

The PUC is smaller than the SLD and barely larger than the PNL. The PNL's social policies are also closer to those of the PUC than the PUC's are to the SLD. Again, it only makes sense for you to negotiate with the right, especially since if you guys hammer out something offensive to the right we might all balk, leaving you with a minority government.

[Clausewitz]

This is a proposal for managing the nuts and bolts of the party (and repeats some things that have already been said). It is admittedly rather strong on party discipline, but also contains earnest commitments to reflect the will of the PUC parliamentary caucus and constituents.

Apportionment of seats

I'm expecting that our votes will be tallied on one PUC list. So, for instance, right now all PUC would receive 17 seats, with 8 votes for PUC-C and 5 votes for PUC-L. PUC-C includes any votes that just say "PUC".

The PUC party leader will then distribute seats to the two wings of the party proportionately; for instance, with the current results, PUC-L gets 38.4% of the PUC vote and PUC-C gets 61.5%. The odd seat goes to the wing of PUC that gets more than .5 of a seat, which (for example) with the current results is PUC-L, which would get 6.528, rounded up to 7 seats out of the 17. PUC-C would get the other 10 seats.

Seats are then allocated to the two party leaders of the wings of PUC, who will then distribute them according to the rules established independently by the two wings of the party.

Voting and party discipline.

Both wings of the party are expected to abide by party discipline. PUC MPs are expected to vote with the party line, established by the PUC party leader (currently Nets), on matters of economic and foreign policy. PUC MPs are expected to vote along the party line with their wing of the party on social matters (currently Nets and Clausewitz). Certain votes may be deemed "free votes" by the party leader relevant to the vote (i.e., Nets on economic foreign policy, and Nets and Clausewitz on social policy) and members of the parties will then be able to vote their conscience.

In addition to a commitment to party discipline, PUC is adamantly committed to reflecting the values and beliefs and principles of its membership. Although the party maintains strong discipline on voting in Parliament, PUC strenuously believes in having the commitments of its MPs and constituents, and is prepared to often grant authority to MPs to vote freely when especially divisive matters of policy arise.

Censure of MPs.

In the event that a seated MP rejects the consensus of the party and votes against the party leadership on a piece of legislation, that MP may be censured and blacklisted by a consensus of the PUC membership and parliamentary caucus. The censure of an MP by the PUC will mean that, until the MP is rehabilitated by consensus of the party, the individual will not be eligible to receive a seat in Parliament or a nomination to state office from this party.

Establishment of platform.

The two wings of PUC establish platform on social and economic policy together by consensus. The two wings of PUC establish social policy independently, but with a strong and earnest effort to develop consensus between the two wings of the party whenever and wherever possible.

[Nets]

Clausewitz, I appreciate the effort.

Both wings of the party are expected to abide by party discipline. PUC MPs are expected to vote with the party line, established by the PUC party leader (currently Nets), on matters of economic and foreign policy. PUC MPs are expected to vote along the party line with their wing of the party on social matters (currently Nets and Clausewitz).

I actually expect PUC decision making to be more democratic than this. Once the PUC internally has reached a consensus we will vote as a party with that decision, but I don't expect to dictate any position a priori. PUC members should respect the decisions of internal discussions though.

[Clausewitz]

How about this:

Voting and party discipline.

On legislation, discussions will be held among PUC members to arrive at consensus for the party's position on a given issue. If consensus is achieved, the relevant party leader(s) will present the position of the PUC on the legislation. PUC MPs are expected to vote with the party line once established by consensus of the caucus. Matters of economic and foreign policy will be discussed and consensus will be sought between all the members of both wings of the Party. On social matters, however, consensus will be sought in each of the individual wings, and party discipline will only be enforced on a wing of the party if consensus is achieved within that wing of the party. Certain votes may be deemed "free votes" by the party leader relevant to the vote (i.e., Nets on economic and foreign policy, and Nets and Clausewitz on social policy for their respective wings) in the event that consensus cannot be reached, and members of the parties will then be able to vote their conscience.

In addition to a commitment to party discipline, PUC is adamantly committed to reflecting the values, beliefs and principles of its membership. Although the party maintains strong discipline on voting in Parliament, PUC strenuously believes in having the commitments of its MPs and constituents, and is prepared to often grant authority to MPs to vote freely when especially divisive matters of policy arise.

[peter_co]

Could I request a clarification in regards to the position of the PUC/PUC-L on the issue of trade. It appears that free trade (or at least mostly free trade) would be completely consistent with the rest of the party's economic platform, but that point is not explicitly discussed.

[peter_co]

So is the PUC/PUC-L willing to participate in the coalition talks with the SLD, PNL, and CA? We should probably first discuss among ourselves what our main requests should be, what dealbreakers there are, so that we can speak with one voice. Then the leadership (or an appointed negotiator) will be able to carry out the actual negotiations.

[Dave]

Could I request a clarification in regards to the position of the PUC/PUC-L on the issue of trade. It appears that free trade (or at least mostly free trade) would be completely consistent with the rest of the party's economic platform, but that point is not explicitly discussed.

It should be noted that the PNL is opposed to absolute free trade, and would request a pragmatic approach in any potential coalition.

[Donna]

The PUC is smaller than the SLD and barely larger than the PNL. The PNL's social policies are also closer to those of the PUC than the PUC's are to the SLD. Again, it only makes sense for you to negotiate with the right, especially since if you guys hammer out something offensive to the right we might all balk, leaving you with a minority government.

Wouldn't you find it easier to negotiate with the PUC-SLD as a single bloc?

[peter_co]

It should be noted that the PNL is opposed to absolute free trade, and would request a pragmatic approach in any potential coalition.

I requested that clarification before voting ended in order to gain a more complete oversight of our party's platform, hence I meant it as an internal party matter. Of course this and other issues will be discussed in inter-party negotiations.

By the way, one other point that I wanted to make is that according to election results, the PUC and PUC-L received virtually the same amount of votes (7 vs. 6), and yet on social matters the PUC platform reflects the viewpoint of the Conservative wing. Since it was decided that social matters would be decided within the individual wings, would it not be preferable to remove that part of the platform entirely (or at least the most contentious points: i.e. abortion) from the PUC and let the PUC-L and the Conservative wing (PUC-C?) present this section separately? The way it is set up now makes it seem as though the conservative wing were the core of the PUC with the PUC-L being the junior partners who dissent on a specific issue.

[peter_co]

I really hate double posting, but I just want to bring this to the attention of the other PUC members. We are the only party that's currently not discussing our post-electoral fate, either internally or with prospective coalition members. I understand that since our leader is missing, the latter point must necessarily be postponed, but we should at least discuss the the other issues amongst the members present so that by the time we will enter into negotiations we will have established a set of guidelines on how we want to proceed.

[ingliz]

The Parliament is now open

The Opening of Parliament

[peter_co]

Are in favor of the proposed constitution? I say Yes.

[Donna]

As of 10:31 PM CST April 25, 2009, I will be assuming all duties and responsibilities as leader of the PoFo Unity Coalition. Any questions and concerns should be directed to me via PM.

Edit: Regarding the vote of confidence put forth by the Parliamentary Clerk, PUC/PUC-L has cast all 13 of its votes for Motion 1 and all 13 of its votes against Motion 2.