Politics Forum.org | PoFo

It seems likely that the two centrist parties SLD/PUC will be part of the governing majority. This will not be sufficient on its own to have a majority however. It will be necessary to have support from one or more third parties, the chief candidates of which are the PNL, CA and elements of the SN-RF.

This thread is for those parties to make explicit their conditions for joining a SLD-PUC coalition, what they would be willing to compromise, and what is non-negotiable. In putting the positions of the PNL, CA and SN-RF side by side, it will make the options available to us much clearer.

Pofo cannot go on rudderless forever!

I can safely say that no one from the SN-RF will forming coalitions governments with the SLD or the PUC.

The choice the SLD have is now clear. Do they prefer Maggie Thatcher or Nick Griffin?

You are free to do as you will. I will only stress that a policy of 'heightening the contradictions' by auto-exclusion is a de facto policy of support for a right-wing coalition. Centrists will do whatever it takes to form a government, it will not be our fault if the hard-left leaves us no place to turn but the right. I should also stress that no communist/socialist party has ever achieved its objectives by pursuing such a course: the result is either self-imposed exile from power in a continued democracy, or fascist despotism.

I just want to make clear that I have not finalized anything thus far. My basic position is that I would prefer the PNL over the CA, due to more similar platforms. I am still not opposed to an SN/RF/SLD alliance, but those talks seem to have fallen apart, and it appears that only a couple SLD members supported it anyway.

I am not opposed to it in principle but it is apparent the unification of the SN-RF has led to its radicalization. There needs to be basic agreement on certain things, and of these there are two which are fundamental: Pofo is an electoral democracy and it has a mixed economy. Once these two things are accepted, and I don't think SN-RF can hope to remove them, then things become negotiable..

The CA refuses coalition with the RF or the SN. Socialism, communism, and anarchism are anti-thetical to our beliefs.

Acceptance of the free-market capitalist system as the basis for the economy is essential, even if there are elements of government intervention.

We are strongly opposed to fiscal irresponsibility.

Maintenance of a strong military is critical.

We oppose any unreasonable measures against gun freedoms and self-defence freedoms.

We must have a strong anti-illegal immigrant policy.

We must have a strong anti-crime agenda.

Those are some of the basics of any agreement. That being said, we are reasonable and are willing to negotiate.

Ah but tis your party that rubbished any potential agreement between the SLD and SN. Concurrent to discussions over potential alliances with between the SLD/SN your leaders were pursuing a love in with Nets, Dave and NYYS. Your party made it clear that you have no interest in the cause of labour and that your platform is only negotiable with Neo-Liberals and Racists.

wiam - Any governmental majority will have to go at least as far right as Nets. The Left is simply not big enough. Even if, and this is impossible, the entire SN-RF and SLD agreed to a coalition, we would not have a majority. Thus nothing is possible without cooperation with the PUC. If you oppose cooperation with Nets in principle, then really you are saying any government with any part of SN-RF is impossible.

An SLD + PUC + CA + PNL Coalition will have way more than enough seats to form a government, but not only that, it keeps the Libertarian Far-Right (LC), the Authoritarian Far-Right (POP), the Libertarian Far-Left (RF) and the Authoritarian Far-Left (SN) out. It's basically the four moderate parties leading the government and the four radical parties representing all corners of the Political Spectrum out of the government.

Sephardi wrote:An SLD + PUC + CA + PNL Coalition will have way more than enough seats to form a government, but not only that, it keeps the Libertarian Far-Right (LC), the Authoritarian Far-Right (POP), the Libertarian Far-Left (RF) and the Authoritarian Far-Left (SN) out. It's basically the four moderate parties leading the government and the four radical parties representing all corners of the Political Spectrum out of the government.

Fair point. However, I fear that within the coalition, we would have divisions along the lines of American politics. I think it would be in our interest to side with only one rightist party, and the PNL has many positions which do not strike me as rightist at all.

Ombrageux wrote:Any governmental majority will have to go at least as far right as Nets

Not necessarily, I can come up with multiple combinations that don't include the PUC. NOt all make sense, but still, the PUC isn't inevitable.

Ombrageux wrote:Even if, and this is impossible, the entire SN-RF and SLD agreed to a coalition, we would not have a majority.

I think you need to recheck your numbers again. Particuarly with the latest votes in...

Fair point. However, I fear that within the coalition, we would have divisions along the lines of American politics. I think it would be in our interest to side with only one rightist party, and the PNL has many positions which do not strike me as rightist at all.

We are currently looking into what concessions we are willing and unable to make. Perhaps you could tell us what specific policies you have trouble getting behind?

Demosthenes wrote:
Not necessarily, I can come up with multiple combinations that don't include the PUC. NOt all make sense, but still, the PUC isn't inevitable.


I think you need to recheck your numbers again. Particuarly with the latest votes in...

The problem is that the SN/RF is insane, and the SLD will therefore not form a coalition with them.

If SLD is unable to work with either the PNL or the CA (honestly, I'm hoping they can negotiate something with PNL), the PUC will probably have little recourse except to form a government with right-wing parties.

wiam - Any governmental majority will have to go at least as far right as Nets. The Left is simply not big enough. Even if, and this is impossible, the entire SN-RF and SLD agreed to a coalition, we would not have a majority. Thus nothing is possible without cooperation with the PUC. If you oppose cooperation with Nets in principle, then really you are saying any government with any part of SN-RF is impossible.

Ahem. The last official count had a SLD/SN/RF bloc with 35 votes. The four right wing parties(excluding the PoP) would have 37. New votes have been registered that I havent counted and there are several prominent left wingers that havent voted yet. A left wing bloc could have won these elections.

HOWEVER. The SLD have moved so far to the right that there is no room for negotiations. Your party is actively pursuing, above left wing alliances, coalitions with neo liberals, racists and fascist sympathisers. The SN/RF simply cannot negotiate given these circumstances.

We are very willing to work with the SLD. Our economic programs will be somewhat similar, and I think some SLD members will like our policies more than their own. On social policies they'll have to move right a bit and we'll have to move left. On foreign policy, we would like a minimum of humanitarian and internationalist nonsense, but we are pragmatic about this. We would like some change on green policies. We favor sustainability and stewardship, but are opposed to cap & trade and Kyoto for economic AND environmental reasons (both basically give existing polluters a free pass while penalizing the introduction of new and cleaner technologies). We are also opposed to the mandate of shit cars for emotional reasons (several of us are gearheads), but not opposed to high gas taxes (moderately opposed but willing to negotiate), modern rapid transit (we are strongly in favor), and the introduction of good technologies to make automobiles cleaner and more efficient without making them suck.

Donald, I think you are being premature. Active SLD members with one or two exceptions seem open to working with the PNL and I only see one or two points of major disagreement with Donald's posting of the CA's position here. The PNL platform is actually far more moderate than its membership would suggest. They may well be closet fascists, but we can wait till after the government forms to find out what they are. If they should turn to the far-right, the government might break down, but I wouldn't let that possibility preclude the formation of a government.

Wiam - The opening to the right-wing was prompted by the breakdown of negotiations with SN and the consolidation of a monolithic radical far-left bloc. I posed two necessary preconditions: a mixed economy, electoral democracy. If you can concede those two points, then perhaps we could begin to fault the SDL for not looking enough to its left..

They may well be closet fascists, but we can wait till after the government forms to find out what they are. If they should turn to the far-right, the government might break down, but I wouldn't let that possibility preclude the formation of a government.

For the purposes of political influence, we have moderated our positions to a great extent. Rest assured, this moderation will be constant, but it is a moderation none the less.

EDIT: PNL's official positions on the coalition are up there for people to read. Any concessions you'd like us to make, please list them.

All talk of us being closet fascists is nonsense. None of us have any record of supporting fascism, despite some of us being quite right-wing. I have attempted to court the fascists because if you look at their platform, they have some planks which are moderately in line with us, even if they are overall radically different. It is only sensible for us to pursue a strategy of absorbing them, and there was never any discussion of us becoming more fascistic to gain their support. The PNL is about as fascistic as the SLD is communistic; that is to say, not very.

And C_M, it's not just moderation--we're really not that far right. I have some far right sympathies (but no fascist sympathies), but our other members do not and there is no incorporation of such ideas in our platform. We have no desire to be the standard bearer of the far right. Rather, we are the standard bearer of the patriotic, populist, and pragmatic right.

Cheesecake Marmelade wrote:We are currently looking into what concessions we are willing and unable to make. Perhaps you could tell us what specific policies you have trouble getting behind?

I'm actually broadly in agreement with your platform. The main problems I have are regarding consumption taxes, welfare, and your college accreditation system. I have a few reservations about health care and social security policy. But basically, these objections have to do with specifics, and if we can agree on a general vision-statement, I think such a coalition can work.