Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Mar 19, 2012 14:36:26 GMT -6
I agree with all points of the ZRT platform except for 7(d), because it is vague. Does "progressively reducing the influence..." mean abolishing the Royal Veto, barring the creation of new nobles, etc.? I'd be in favour of that, personally, but the details would have to be worked out by inner-party debate. Let's put it this way - I'd rather have a constitutional monarchist who supports a secret ballot in the ZRT than a staunch republican who supports an open ballot, because that's just my priorities. (Welcome back, Owen.) Anyone who really wants to be in the ZRT and help to tweak our programme, please tell me and I'll give you a link to our debating chamber.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Mar 19, 2012 14:46:50 GMT -6
I know its probably not statistically significant (I havent checked) and I understand correlation does not mean causation, but still, for those who want to form one large opposition party, just for the sake of being against the government, Im not sure if it works. You misunderstand our proposal; we want to offer an alternative government, and then one day to be the government. But your statistics are interesting. You perhaps also understand what I'm proposing. I am not calling for an "Opposition Pot Pie Blob" with no clearly defined programme. Far from it. The ZRT has a clearly defined programme and we want debate and ideological clarification within the opposition; all those who agree with that programme to join us, and all those who disagree to keep their own parties with their own clearly defined programme. The problem is that your posts are very long and they don't clearly state what the MRPT's differences with the ZRT are, apart from generally being more "moderate". But I also want to propose a Democratic Front for the upcoming Cosâ election - that is, as many opposition parties as possible, while keeping their own independence and particular programmes, also agree on a certain number of basic democratic reforms to introduce to the next Cosâ, and to enact them if we get a majority of them. I would suggest "secret ballot and party lists" as the central element of any such programme. Any other suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 19, 2012 14:49:05 GMT -6
Since this is question-barrage-for-the-poor-ZRT time: do you guys have a formal hierarchy to make decisions, or is it just informally led by the party founders who operate based on the zeitgeist?
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 19, 2012 14:54:01 GMT -6
...while conservatives who are internally almost as diverse as Talossa itself, will have to stuck with one party, which cant promise anything and has no clear direction, just to keep the radicals that want to destroy Talossa (that's us) out. I wouldn't at all describe the RUMP that way, if that is what you meant. The RUMP is not "majority for majority's sake" ("just to keep [the opposition] out"), as much as we, tongue-in-cheek, named the party "Still Fending off the Many Progressives" this term. I also would take issue with saying that the RUMP has no clear direction. Here, in fact, is our most recent platform, which indicates that we, at least, don't believe that we have nothing to promise, and that is chock full of directionish (or at least directionesque) stuff, I think, maybe. (( Hool )) Well, the RUMP has a direction on some of the issues (although this manifesto, like many others also contains a lot of vague sentences like "The government will hold a constructive dialogue concerning the composition of the Ziu, the size and power of the Senate, and the legislative powers of each house." I dont think any party disagrees with that (I hope).), but the RUMP has so many members, with very diverse opinions (and are apparently encouraged to dissent, if I should believe sir Mick) This results in not exactly knowing what to expect when you vote RUMP. Wouldnt this problem be partly solved if there were more conservative parties, so people in a party would agree on at least 2/3 of the issues? Thank you, it looks much better this way.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 19, 2012 15:02:48 GMT -6
For example. In the first three clarks, RUMP MC voted differently in 8 of the 12 cases. Obviously it is hard to compare this with the MRP, because we only have 1 MC, but I can say Alexandreu and I have only differed in one of these 12 votes.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 19, 2012 15:08:21 GMT -6
I know its probably not statistically significant (I havent checked) and I understand correlation does not mean causation, but still, for those who want to form one large opposition party, just for the sake of being against the government, Im not sure if it works. You misunderstand our proposal; we want to offer an alternative government, and then one day to be the government. But your statistics are interesting. You perhaps also understand what I'm proposing. I am not calling for an "Opposition Pot Pie Blob" with no clearly defined programme. Far from it. The ZRT has a clearly defined programme and we want debate and ideological clarification within the opposition; all those who agree with that programme to join us, and all those who disagree to keep their own parties with their own clearly defined programme. The problem is that your posts are very long and they don't clearly state what the MRPT's differences with the ZRT are, apart from generally being more "moderate". But I also want to propose a Democratic Front for the upcoming Cosâ election - that is, as many opposition parties as possible, while keeping their own independence and particular programmes, also agree on a certain number of basic democratic reforms to introduce to the next Cosâ, and to enact them if we get a majority of them. I would suggest "secret ballot and party lists" as the central element of any such programme. Any other suggestions? Well, secret ballot is one such subject on which we disagree. For me its not a very important issue, but apparently it is for the ZRT, so that is one problem. Otherwise I agree with almost all of it, but Im not sure if you will be agreeing with what the MRPT will be proposing when our manifesto will be released. You can have a look at our current one , but it is slightly outdated. (So much happened in three months)
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Mar 19, 2012 15:25:22 GMT -6
Since this is question-barrage-for-the-poor-ZRT time: do you guys have a formal hierarchy to make decisions, or is it just informally led by the party founders who operate based on the zeitgeist? There is a full democratic decision-making process in our party HQ.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 19, 2012 15:31:04 GMT -6
Cool So members vote on the party leaders and things?
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Mar 19, 2012 15:34:48 GMT -6
Correct.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Mar 19, 2012 15:35:02 GMT -6
Let's put it this way - I'd rather have a constitutional monarchist who supports a secret ballot in the ZRT than a staunch republican who supports an open ballot, because that's just my priorities. (Welcome back, Owen.) Thanks for the welcome!
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Mar 19, 2012 21:25:59 GMT -6
Let's put it this way - I'd rather have a constitutional monarchist who supports a secret ballot in the ZRT than a staunch republican who supports an open ballot, because that's just my priorities. (Welcome back, Owen.) Thanks for the welcome! Wait, Owen -- I am 100% sure that your most recent post indicated that you favoured an OPEN ballot.... Am I wrong? Hool
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Mar 20, 2012 7:48:59 GMT -6
No, I was just thanking Miestra for her gracious welcome!
|
|
Istefan Perþonest
Cunstaval to Fiôvâ; Regent of the University of Talossa
Posts: 1,024
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
|
Post by Istefan Perþonest on Mar 20, 2012 18:50:44 GMT -6
I would like to hear what Istefan and Flip think, but I agree with most of this. I have parts I agree with, parts I disagree with, and parts that I'd probably debate about how to properly define. I have basically conservative instincts, is the difficulty. I'm not a particularly good fit for a reforming/progressive party, so I don't think such a party should look heavily at what I want when deciding on its platform. Arguably, I'm a natural member of the RUMP who drifted into the CSP for reasons that may well be transient, rather than a natural member of the CSPP. (But what about what I've been doing in the Hopper? I entertain many notions that I never actually marry.)
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Mar 20, 2012 18:55:48 GMT -6
(But what about what I've been doing in the Hopper? I entertain many notions that I never actually marry.) You are more progressive than you let on
|
|