Politics Forum.org | PoFo

This appears to represent the best chance for forming a government. How do the members of these formations feel about such a prospect?

This is the coalition I'm willing to form. The votes we have are as follows:

SLD: 16
PNL: 13
PUC: 13
CA: 7
Total: 49

Rather than squabbling over specific policies, which we can do later (and consensus is close on poverty alleviation anyway), we need to sort out whether or not we agree to this coalition, and if so, ministers.

The SLD platform must form the basis for the coalition, with amendments that are agreeable to other parties. The SLD social policy platform has to be adopted practically as it stands. If those conditions are met, and we are able to hammer out the economic discussion that is currently taking place, I can support this coalition.

Obviously, the SLD will receive the bulk of the cabinet posts, including Prime Minister, Finance, Health, and Education.

The SLD platform must form the basis for the coalition, with amendments that are agreeable to other parties. The SLD social policy platform has to be adopted practically as it stands. If those conditions are met, and we are able to hammer out the economic discussion that is currently taking place, I can support this coalition.

Obviously, the SLD will receive the bulk of the cabinet posts, including Prime Minister, Finance, Health, and Education.

Gnote I think the leader of the SLD should do the negotiations.

I second Oxy's post.

Let party leaders or party-appointed negotiators handle this. As much as I like Gnote, he is famously undiplomatic and abrasive.

Without the SLD, no coalitions are possible.

You should mind that fact.

Without the PNL, no coalitions are possible. Without the PUC, no coalitions are possible. The CA can be replaced by the LC, but I'm guessing that won't fly.

I would be comfortable being the largest party in a minority parliament.

I say let's go for the Blue-Orange. We'll worry about the details of our social assistance platform later since we can't agree overnight how much to tax and how many benefits to give out to the needy.

Gnote, you're absolutely right about the SLD being essential to a coalition. Which is why we can't afford to push away all the other parties by being too stubborn and nitpicky at this point. If we do that we are making it impossible for a coalition to form.

Gnote wrote:I would be comfortable being the largest party in a minority parliament.

Minority governments are constitutionally disallowed.

Obviously, the SLD will receive the bulk of the cabinet posts, including Prime Minister, Finance, Health, and Education.

The PUC leads this Coalition. Nets will become the Prime Minister, because the PUC will have a better chance of forming a coalition, then any of our other parties. Finance should be within the Conservative Alliance since we have more knowledge of economics and finance. Health and Education can be SLD's.

You need 51 seats, don't you? This is only 49.

The PUC leads this Coalition.

Except that it doesn't.

[quote]Minority governments are constitutionally disallowed.[/quote
Then I am comfortable being the largest party in a hung parliament.

Finance should be within the Conservative Alliance since we have more knowledge of economics and finance.

Since you subscribe to the utter sham that is neoclassical macroeconomics, that's not likely. And it's empirically wrong anyway. Out of all of us Dave is the most knowledgeable in economics (and almost anything else, really).

The PUC leads this Coalition. Nets will become the Prime Minister, because the PUC will have a better chance of forming a coalition, then any of our other parties. Finance should be within the Conservative Alliance since we have more knowledge of economics and finance. Health and Education can be SLD's.

I agree, the PUC lies at the centre of this alliance and is the necessary bridge between the right and left wings. As such, the role of naming the PM should naturally fall to the PUC. As the largest member of the coalition though, the SLD can have the most ministries, especially those dealing with "softer" issues such as education, culture, etc., which more naturally belong with the SLD anyway.

How does the PUC lead the coalition without holding the largest share?

With regard to Gnote, Dave wrote:...he is famously undiplomatic and abrasive.

If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is

The PUC leads this Coalition. Nets will become the Prime Minister, because the PUC will have a better chance of forming a coalition, then any of our other parties. Finance should be within the Conservative Alliance since we have more knowledge of economics and finance. Health and Education can be SLD's.

Ok this is getting out of hand, please people stop making outlandish claims. lets allow all members of each party to vote for PM, and who will lead what ministries(each group will elect among themselves and then will compete against the other parties.) Because this is just squabbling and disgraceful for the New Republics leadership to act.

How does the PUC lead the coalition without holding the largest share?

Because that is the arrangement that most members of the coalition agree with.

The CA is the smallest party and should not get something like finance, especially since everyone else is likely somewhat unhappy with their economics proposals. I would be more than comfortable with putting a law & order CA guy in charge of the Interior Dept., however.

By the way, what ministries are we to have?