[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

I'm opening up this thread so that the leaders and only the leaders of the centrist coalition can hammer out a policy for the coalition and perhaps determine ministers/PM.

Please do not post in this thread unless you're Paradigm, Nets, Dan, or Dave.

Demo edit: I shall enforce this. For the sake of moving this along at some point. All the e-masterbation is entertaining for awhile, but at some point, someone should move it along. I nominate....myself.

[Demosthenes]

One clarification please, though the thread is about this coalition, it may be relevant for future threads to allow any leader (as long as oppostion or opponent leaders are not spamming) to post.

I suggest that all party leaders should have an opportunity to post, but that those not named do so only with the intent to negotiate or at least that they do so in good faith.

It might also help to add some type of symbol to the heading, like: (PLO) Meaning, party leaders only...something like that.

That gives me something I can actually enforce.

Btw Cheese, that probably also means one of them should open it up in the future...(just saying...)

[Dan]

The CA is not opposed to this coalition as long as the terms are reasonable.

We recognize that we are the smallest of the four and will be pragmatic, but we also recognize that we are necessary for this coalition and would prefer to keep our honour as an opposition party then sacrifice it for power.

We also recognize that the PNL and CA, both of the right, together make the largest bloc in this potential coalition, and will not accept the SLD pushing too strong of a leftist platform on us.

To be honest, I think working with the PNL and PUC will be easy. We agree on enough, it's the SLD that will cause the trouble, especially if GNote's craziness continues.

* Access to free, universal healthcare for all

Do not necessarily disagree as long as delivery is private and optional private insurance is allowed.

* Progressive tax regime

As long as it's not stupidly so, it is negotiable.

* Some level of guaranteed minimum income

Nope.

* Free education, access to which is on a meritocratic basis

Agreeable, as long as their is no stupidity to the policy.

[Dave]

The PNL requires that drinking and driving be legalized as a precondition of our participation in a coalition

Nah, just kidding. Immigration is our number one, and we also want mandatory savings to be at the very least the primary means of ensuring social insurance. Beyond that we'd like to see what the other parties want.

[Paradigm]

I have spoken with some of the more disagreeable elements within my party, and we are backing away from our demands for a GMI. We will worry about that once the coalition government is in place. We are willing to proceed with this coalition so long as the four pillars of our platform are met:

Opportunity. Social Liberal Democrats believe all citizens should have a reasonable opportunity to craft their life as they desire. Current realities the world over are not designed to ensure this sort of opportunity for all citizens. While we do not believe that equality of economic outcome is realistic, we strive to place all citizens in a position from which they can reasonably expect upward social mobility, if that is what they desire.

Well-being. Social Liberal Democrats believe that citizens have a right to define individual progress on their own terms, and strive for that individual progress in kind. As such, a society influenced by Social Liberal Democratic public policy will facilitate and promote spiritual, social, cultural, and community growth in conjunction with economic growth, rather than as secondary priorities.

Freedom. Social Liberal Democrats believe a properly functioning society requires personal freedoms. Social Liberal Democratic public policy will seek to optimize the balance between one’s freedom to act as one desires with one’s freedom from the negative repercussions that may result from the actions of other citizens.

Stewardship. Social Liberal Democrats believe every society has a responsibility to respect the broader world. Social Liberal Democratic public policy will therefore seek to minimize the negative impact that our society’s activities have on the rest of the world, and, where possible, maintain a steady, positive presence in environmental an foreign affairs.

This will involve things like progressive taxation, universal healthcare, free education, and strong environmental laws. If those are all agreeable to you, then we are ready to proceed.

[Dave]

That sounds fine to me. We would prefer, but not demand, a Singapore model for universal healthcare (although advocate single-payer for children) rather than single-payer. If you investigate their system, you will see that it is very successful. The PNL also advocates cutting healthcare expenditures by making preventative healthcare free and mandatory. We would also like to propose some changes to the food supply to improve human health.

We have a caveat regarding the SLD's stewardship principle. Namely, we fear this could be used to justify and interventionist or humanitarian foreign policy. While we would be okay with paying lip service to popular international causes in order to look good, we feel that our foreign policy must ultimately be governed by our own national interests.

We are opposed to Kyoto and cap-and-trade, which subsidize polluters and penalize new firms with more environmentally efficient technology in addition to harming our competitiveness. See this article: http://www.sandersresearch.com/index.ph ... ew&id=1379

Is the SLD okay with a restrictionist, assimilationist immigration policy? We assume the other parties are.

[Paradigm]

We would prefer, but not demand, a Singapore model for universal healthcare (although advocate single-payer for children) rather than single-payer.

I'm not quite familiar with Singapore's model, but so long as healthcare is universal and affordable, we'll be willing to work with you on it.

We have a caveat regarding the SLD's stewardship principle. Namely, we fear this could be used to justify and interventionist or humanitarian foreign policy. While we would be okay with paying lip service to popular international causes in order to look good, we feel that our foreign policy must ultimately be governed by our own national interests.

What if that foreign policy simply involves sanctions against certain regimes?

We are opposed to Kyoto and cap-and-trade, which subsidize polluters and penalize new firms with more environmentally efficient technology in addition to harming our competitiveness.

We may continue to pursue cap-and-trade, but will not insist that you agree to do so as well, so long as you agree to a comprehensive investment in green infrastructure and a long-term commitment to replace polluting industries with cleaner, carbon-neutral ones.

Is the SLD okay with a restrictionist, assimilationist immigration policy? We assume the other parties are.

I think most of my party is on board. Nattering Nabob expressed some hesitation about it, but seemed willing to compromise. Within reason, I think we can agree to such a policy.

[Dave]

I'm not quite familiar with Singapore's model, but so long as healthcare is universal and affordable, we'll be willing to work with you on it.

A portion of a person's savings in the Central Provident Fund are used to pay healthcare expenses. This account is called Medisave. In addition to paying for healthcare expenses, Medisave can be used to purchase a policy from Medishield, a state-owned insurer which provides catastrophic coverage (like normal insurance, so not like third party payment plan "insurance" in America). ElderShield is an affordable state-provided disability insurance scheme for the elderly. For those who have not amassed large enough Medisave accounts, an assistance program known as Medifund steps in. The state also invests in supply through excellent medical schools and state hospitals (there are also private hospitals). The system guarantees a very high level of healthcare, and healthcare costs as a share of GDP are about one quarter of those in the United States. Unlike single payer models, the system is actuarially sound as it is funded by savings. The savings, of course, in turn accelerate economic growth.

The PNL doesn't advocate following this exactly, but more or less subscribes to this model.

What if that foreign policy simply involves sanctions against certain regimes?

That should be decided on a case by case basis which weighs our commercial interests versus the opinion of the international community.

We may continue to pursue cap-and-trade, but will not insist that you agree to do so as well,

I strongly urge you to read the article I linked. Cap-and-trade isn't necessarily even good for the environment,

so long as you agree to a comprehensive investment in green infrastructure

Absolutely.

and a long-term commitment to replace polluting industries with cleaner, carbon-neutral ones.

Questionable. How can we eliminate carbon in, for instance, steelmaking? We also have untapped reserves of geothermal electricity which could make us the world's largest aluminium refiner.

I think most of my party is on board. Nattering Nabob expressed some hesitation about it, but seemed willing to compromise. Within reason, I think we can agree to such a policy.

Wonderful. I'll think you'll find that a restrictionist immigration policy also helps achieve many progressive aims.

[Paradigm]

Questionable. How can we eliminate carbon in, for instance, steelmaking? We also have untapped reserves of geothermal electricity which could make us the world's largest aluminium refiner.

If a particular industry cannot be carbon-neutral, then at least society itself should be. And I think it's only fair that industries that aren't carbon-neutral should pay for their carbon offsets. And thus we're back to cap-and-trade, or alternately, a carbon tax(would that be more preferable?).

[Dave]

If a particular industry cannot be carbon-neutral, then at least society itself should be.

How is that possible exactly? I'm not opposed to the vision per se, but I'd like an idea.

And I think it's only fair that industries that aren't carbon-neutral should pay for their carbon offsets.

This would harm our competitiveness, and unless we slapped a carbon tariff on imported goods, which could invite disproportionate retaliation from our trading partners, could simply result in those industries being offshored anyway.

And thus we're back to cap-and-trade, or alternately, a carbon tax(would that be more preferable?).

Our preference would be the direct application of technology to phase out carbon emissions in sectors where they are not needed at all, such as electricity. In other sectors, a carbon tax could work, or perhaps a simple regulatory approach of forcing reductions by x%. I should also say that the PNL thinks that anthropogenic global warming is a scam, but that it's worth being cautious and acting like it's a real threat anyway.

[Dan]

Opportunity is not disagreeable as long as we can add: "we strive to place all citizens in a position from which they can reasonably expect upward social mobility, if that is what they desire, are willing to work towards, and are capable of achieving."

Well-being is not disagreeable as long as it is not brought to extremes that hamper freedom.

Freedom is very much supported.

Stewardship is more iffy. The way you worded it is not bad in itself as long as the country's needs come first and if is not carried to ridiculous extremes. As well, internationalism, beyond mere lip-service, will not be appreciated.

Progressive taxation is not supported, but the CA is willing to make some concession in this area if it is reasonable. We would reiterate our support for a flat tax with a basic livign amount each year that is tax free for all citizens (say $20,000/year). This is somehwat progressive but not unreasonably so.

Universal healthcare is not objecitonable as long as it is done right.

Free education is very much supported, but would prefer a voucher system.

Strong environmental laws are a sticky point. We have a conservationism in our platform, but humans come first, always. We would prefer conservation through technology and technical solutions then through excessive and harmful regulation.

What if that foreign policy simply involves sanctions against certain regimes?

Depends on our interests and the likely effects of the sanctions.

We may continue to pursue cap-and-trade, but will not insist that you agree to do so as well, so long as you agree to a comprehensive investment in green infrastructure and a long-term commitment to replace polluting industries with cleaner, carbon-neutral ones.

We are opposed to cap-and-trade (and are strongly opposed to Kyoto), but we support investment in green energy, green technology, and weather control systems to regulate global temperatures. We would prefer to advance conservation through technology rather then regulations harmful to the national interest and human well-being.

[Paradigm]

Progressive taxation is not supported, but the CA is willing to make some concession in this area if it is reasonable. We would reiterate our support for a flat tax with a basic livign amount each year that is tax free for all citizens (say $20,000/year). This is somehwat progressive but not unreasonably so.

The SLD will not support a flat tax, especially given that all the other parties in the coalition have progressive taxation in their platforms. Your party appears to be alone on this issue.

Free education is very much supported, but would prefer a voucher system.

We are willing to support vouchers for non-parochial schools, but will also support charter schools and strong investment in our public schools.

Strong environmental laws are a sticky point. We have a conservationism in our platform, but humans come first, always.

Human life is the reason for protecting the environment in the first place.

We would prefer conservation through technology and technical solutions then through excessive and harmful regulation.

We support subsidizing research into sustainable technology, but also believe that technology is not enough. We recognize the need for businesses to be competitive, and thus will try wherever possible to favor a system of economic incentives and disincentives over harsh regulation. We will still regulate where it is our best option to do so.

[Dan]

The SLD will not support a flat tax, especially given that all the other parties in the coalition have progressive taxation in their platforms. Your party appears to be alone on this issue.

I realize that, so a moderately progressive tax can be a part of a coalition platform, but only grudgingly so.

We are willing to support vouchers for non-parochial schools, but will also support charter schools and strong investment in our public schools.

That is acceptable.

Human life is the reason for protecting the environment in the first place.

As long as that is so, it is acceptable.

We support subsidizing research into sustainable technology, but also believe that technology is not enough. We recognize the need for businesses to be competitive, and thus will try wherever possible to favor a system of economic incentives and disincentives over harsh regulation. We will still regulate where it is our best option to do so.

That sounds like a reasonable position and is acceptable.

[Paradigm]

I realize that, so a moderately progressive tax can be a part of a coalition platform, but only grudgingly so.

I guess it depends on what you'd consider to be moderate. In any case, it looks like we're mostly in agreement.