New Democratic Party [NSG Senate | HQ]

[Costa Alegria]

As I've already said before, if Britanno wants to leave, he is free to do so.

[Britanno]

As I've already said before, if Britanno wants to leave, he is free to do so.

It's perfectly possible to support a party and not its coalition.

Not all members of the UK Lib Dems support a coalitions with the Tories for example.

[Costa Alegria]

As I've already said before, if Britanno wants to leave, he is free to do so.

It's perfectly possible to support a party and not its coalition.

Not all members of the UK Lib Dems support a coalitions with the Tories for example.

I don't care. You said you want the coalition to leave. Everyone else said they didn't. Therefore, you can stay or you can leave.

[Commonwealth Air Force]

I do not support a 5-man council making big party decisions so may I ask the leadership that in the future big party issues should not be put to the 5-man council but to the whole party-base to decide.

Of course.

-Ain

[Commonwealth Air Force]

The New democratic party (and fairly center) isn't actually going to be the first party to enact party censorship laws is it?

Nihil, you were told by Divair to leave how many times now?

In case that isn't clear, YOU ARE NOT WELCOME IN THIS THREAD.

[Ainin]

The most pathetic and slow elections ever are over. Bering is now MoRA and Priory is MoTelecom.

[The Saint James Islands]

Unfortunately, due to recent developments within the NDP, I shall be terminating my membership in the party effective immediately.

To all of the former TR members, thank you for letting me into your party at my beginning. Totally Rad was my first party in the Aurentine Senate and I will always remember it dearly. Thank you for having me in your party so openly. I still kind of miss those days, but they're gone now; there's no use in dwelling on them. I wish you nothing but the best of luck in the NDP.

To all of the former LD members, thank you for your cooperative spirit in the TR-LD merger. The willingness of both parties to compromise and come together for their common ideals made the process much easier. You have been nothing but a delight to work with over my time here in the New Democrats, but alas, that time is now up.

I will still be supporting the Progress Coalition and the Ainin and Porunalakai-led Cabinet all the way. That loyalty will not change. Unfortunately, I believe the NDP and I may have drifted apart. Good luck to all of you.

[CTALNH]

Is it bad that I believe in due time (because the NDP is so big) your party will collapse under its own weight and become splinter groups?

[Next Washington]

i am talking about natural parents. the child is either a result of sexual interaction between the parents or adoption when there is no possibility the parents can "make" a child themselves

So? In polygamous families all the parents are counted as natural parents. They don't see the difference, because there is none. You are actually trying to discriminate against them.

ok, here's my adoption:

Family Incentives Act

---

Foreword
Every modern civilization relies on enough young people who support the older ones, directly by caring about them, or indirectly, by taxes. But nowadays we see that the age pyramid changes dramatically: The old people are getting more and more, while there are areas where people have an average child number at or below 1. That means, this one child has to (partially) pay for three people in the future (parents + itself). Now, this quote is about 1/1, meaning one tax-paying person indirectly cares for another one (a retired person, student, child, ...).
In the short term this quote must be stopped from raising, in the long term even lowered. Therefore the Aurentina government shall provide special incentives, directly and indirectly, for families. Thereby the number of children will rise and the quote will lower.

---

I. In the following, "family" is defined as a minimum of two people who have one or more child of which they are fully responsible. That includes married couples with one or more child(ren) as well as registered partnerships with one or more child(ren). The law does not divide between a child as a result of sexual interaction between these two people and between an adopted child.
"Parents" is defined as the two people, regardless of their sex, who are registered as the persons reponsible for the child(ren).

II. Families shall be granted the following direct incentives:
a. A direct money transfer from the government to the parents each month. This payment shall be 100 NSG$(our currency?) per child between 0 and 18 years per month. If the child is between 18 and 24 years old, this payment shall be 50 NSG$ per child and per month.
b. This amount of money must only be paid if the residence of the child is the same as the residence of the parents.
c. All parents must receive the offer of 5% more free days from their employers.
d. Direct incentives end when the child reaches the age of 25 years.

III. Families shall be granted the following indirect incentives:
a. One of the parents shall be allowed to lower his fiscal relevant income by 500 NGS$ per child and per year.
b. This reduction may only happen if the residence of the child is the same as the residence of the parents.
c. This reduction may only happen until the child reaches the age of 25 years.

IV. Single families, meaning one of the partners left the partnership by cancelling the relationship or death so only one part is left must receive the following treatment:
a. The incentives mentioned in II.a. and II.c. must be doubled. The age limits stay the same.
b. The reduction mentioned in III.a. must be doubled. The age limit mentioned in III.c. must remain the same.
c. II.b. and III.b. also apply for single families.
d. II.d. also applies for single families.

---

Epilogue
This law will successfully increase birth rates as families and those who want to found a family are supported by the government. The government grants parents the possibility of incentives for both raising their children easier and actively influencing their own future as they, when they are retired, will have an easier life due to increased workforce.

Child Protection Act

---

Foreword
Children in Aurentina are already granted their rights by the (International Law Act). Also the children's rights for education were settled by the Public Education Act. But there is currently no control of the government concerning the adherence of this law. Therefore Aurentina shall develop a Child and Youth Protection Agency. This agency shall actively control the children's living standards and also have the authority to punish parents who infringe the upper mentioned laws.

---

I. In the following, "child" is defined as a person with an age between 0 and 10 years. "Youth" and "youngster" refers to persons between 10 and 18 years. Also, the Child and Youth Protection Agency is referred to as "CAYPA".

II. This law is valid for children and youngsters.

III. The goverment must found the CAYPA.
a. This agency must be contactable by every child and youngster. Information how to contact is shall be visible in schools and public buildings.
b. This agency must be contacted by persons whose profession is dedicated to the well-being of children and youngsters when they think parents infrige the Public Education Act or the International Law Act. This include all public personnel as well as doctors and psychiatrists.

IV. Parents who actively act against the previous mentioned laws must receive punishment settled by a court.
a. Parents who for the first time, according to the court, neglect their parental duties, shall receive special treatment and observation by the CAYPA.
b. Parents who receive three punishments from the court, not regarding whether the reasons behind are related to children and youngsters or not, will be forced to hand over all their children to the CAYPA.
c. Parents who violently abuse one or more child or youngster shall, in addition to the loss of their children to the CAYPA, receive extra punishment in the form of imprisonment.
d. Parents who sexually abuse one or more child or youngster shall, in addition to the loss of their children to the CAYPA, receive the highest punishment setable by the court.

V. Children and youngsters who have been taken away from their family by the CAYPA shall receive special treatment.
a. Those children and youngsters shall receive special psychological treatment.
b. Those children and youngsters shall be handed over to a foster family specially chosen by the CAYPA.
c. Those foster families shall be granted the rights mentioned in the Family Incentives Act.

---

Epilogue
The well-being of children and youngster, as they are seen as less powerful than adults, must be granted in everyy civilized society. Aurentina must care about its next generation.

[Lamaredia]

So? In polygamous families all the parents are counted as natural parents. They don't see the difference, because there is none. You are actually trying to discriminate against them.

ok, here's my adoption:

Family Incentives Act

---

Foreword
Every modern civilization relies on enough young people who support the older ones, directly by caring about them, or indirectly, by taxes. But nowadays we see that the age pyramid changes dramatically: The old people are getting more and more, while there are areas where people have an average child number at or below 1. That means, this one child has to (partially) pay for three people in the future (parents + itself). Now, this quote is about 1/1, meaning one tax-paying person indirectly cares for another one (a retired person, student, child, ...).
In the short term this quote must be stopped from raising, in the long term even lowered. Therefore the Aurentina government shall provide special incentives, directly and indirectly, for families. Thereby the number of children will rise and the quote will lower.

---

I. In the following, "family" is defined as a minimum of two people who have one or more child of which they are fully responsible. That includes married couples with one or more child(ren) as well as registered partnerships with one or more child(ren). The law does not divide between a child as a result of sexual interaction between these two people and between an adopted child.
"Parents" is defined as the two people, regardless of their sex, who are registered as the persons reponsible for the child(ren).

II. Families shall be granted the following direct incentives:
a. A direct money transfer from the government to the parents each month. This payment shall be 100 NSG$(our currency?) per child between 0 and 18 years per month. If the child is between 18 and 24 years old, this payment shall be 50 NSG$ per child and per month.
b. This amount of money must only be paid if the residence of the child is the same as the residence of the parents.
c. All parents must receive the offer of 5% more free days from their employers.
d. Direct incentives end when the child reaches the age of 25 years.

III. Families shall be granted the following indirect incentives:
a. One of the parents shall be allowed to lower his fiscal relevant income by 500 NGS$ per child and per year.
b. This reduction may only happen if the residence of the child is the same as the residence of the parents.
c. This reduction may only happen until the child reaches the age of 25 years.

IV. Single families, meaning one of the partners left the partnership by cancelling the relationship or death so only one part is left must receive the following treatment:
a. The incentives mentioned in II.a. and II.c. must be doubled. The age limits stay the same.
b. The reduction mentioned in III.a. must be doubled. The age limit mentioned in III.c. must remain the same.
c. II.b. and III.b. also apply for single families.
d. II.d. also applies for single families.

---

Epilogue
This law will successfully increase birth rates as families and those who want to found a family are supported by the government. The government grants parents the possibility of incentives for both raising their children easier and actively influencing their own future as they, when they are retired, will have an easier life due to increased workforce.

Child Protection Act

---

Foreword
Children in Aurentina are already granted their rights by the (International Law Act). Also the children's rights for education were settled by the Public Education Act. But there is currently no control of the government concerning the adherence of this law. Therefore Aurentina shall develop a Child and Youth Protection Agency. This agency shall actively control the children's living standards and also have the authority to punish parents who infringe the upper mentioned laws.

---

I. In the following, "child" is defined as a person with an age between 0 and 10 years. "Youth" and "youngster" refers to persons between 10 and 18 years. Also, the Child and Youth Protection Agency is referred to as "CAYPA".

II. This law is valid for children and youngsters.

III. The goverment must found the CAYPA.
a. This agency must be contactable by every child and youngster. Information how to contact is shall be visible in schools and public buildings.
b. This agency must be contacted by persons whose profession is dedicated to the well-being of children and youngsters when they think parents infrige the Public Education Act or the International Law Act. This include all public personnel as well as doctors and psychiatrists.

IV. Parents who actively act against the previous mentioned laws must receive punishment settled by a court.
a. Parents who for the first time, according to the court, neglect their parental duties, shall receive special treatment and observation by the CAYPA.
b. Parents who receive three punishments from the court, not regarding whether the reasons behind are related to children and youngsters or not, will be forced to hand over all their children to the CAYPA.
c. Parents who violently abuse one or more child or youngster shall, in addition to the loss of their children to the CAYPA, receive extra punishment in the form of imprisonment.
d. Parents who sexually abuse one or more child or youngster shall, in addition to the loss of their children to the CAYPA, receive the highest punishment setable by the court.

V. Children and youngsters who have been taken away from their family by the CAYPA shall receive special treatment.
a. Those children and youngsters shall receive special psychological treatment.
b. Those children and youngsters shall be handed over to a foster family specially chosen by the CAYPA.
c. Those foster families shall be granted the rights mentioned in the Family Incentives Act.

---

Epilogue
The well-being of children and youngster, as they are seen as less powerful than adults, must be granted in everyy civilized society. Aurentina must care about its next generation.

But why a minimum of two parents? There are single parents you know.

[Battlion]

Why give up a coalition where we possess ideological dominance, for a coalition where more compromise would be involved, seems like a bad tradeoff.

^

I've never said give up, I again support the Progress Coalition and I'm not saying we leave to appease Brit...

I'll quote one thing I said and I hope this time you read it...

I support the NDP and I support Divair's decision to keep us in the Progress Coalition

[Next Washington]

ok, here's my adoption:

Family Incentives Act

---

Foreword
Every modern civilization relies on enough young people who support the older ones, directly by caring about them, or indirectly, by taxes. But nowadays we see that the age pyramid changes dramatically: The old people are getting more and more, while there are areas where people have an average child number at or below 1. That means, this one child has to (partially) pay for three people in the future (parents + itself). Now, this quote is about 1/1, meaning one tax-paying person indirectly cares for another one (a retired person, student, child, ...).
In the short term this quote must be stopped from raising, in the long term even lowered. Therefore the Aurentina government shall provide special incentives, directly and indirectly, for families. Thereby the number of children will rise and the quote will lower.

---

I. In the following, "family" is defined as a minimum of two people who have one or more child of which they are fully responsible. That includes married couples with one or more child(ren) as well as registered partnerships with one or more child(ren). The law does not divide between a child as a result of sexual interaction between these two people and between an adopted child.
"Parents" is defined as the two people, regardless of their sex, who are registered as the persons reponsible for the child(ren).

II. Families shall be granted the following direct incentives:
a. A direct money transfer from the government to the parents each month. This payment shall be 100 NSG$(our currency?) per child between 0 and 18 years per month. If the child is between 18 and 24 years old, this payment shall be 50 NSG$ per child and per month.
b. This amount of money must only be paid if the residence of the child is the same as the residence of the parents.
c. All parents must receive the offer of 5% more free days from their employers.
d. Direct incentives end when the child reaches the age of 25 years.

III. Families shall be granted the following indirect incentives:
a. One of the parents shall be allowed to lower his fiscal relevant income by 500 NGS$ per child and per year.
b. This reduction may only happen if the residence of the child is the same as the residence of the parents.
c. This reduction may only happen until the child reaches the age of 25 years.

IV. Single families, meaning one of the partners left the partnership by cancelling the relationship or death so only one part is left must receive the following treatment:
a. The incentives mentioned in II.a. and II.c. must be doubled. The age limits stay the same.
b. The reduction mentioned in III.a. must be doubled. The age limit mentioned in III.c. must remain the same.
c. II.b. and III.b. also apply for single families.
d. II.d. also applies for single families.

---

Epilogue
This law will successfully increase birth rates as families and those who want to found a family are supported by the government. The government grants parents the possibility of incentives for both raising their children easier and actively influencing their own future as they, when they are retired, will have an easier life due to increased workforce.

Child Protection Act

---

Foreword
Children in Aurentina are already granted their rights by the (International Law Act). Also the children's rights for education were settled by the Public Education Act. But there is currently no control of the government concerning the adherence of this law. Therefore Aurentina shall develop a Child and Youth Protection Agency. This agency shall actively control the children's living standards and also have the authority to punish parents who infringe the upper mentioned laws.

---

I. In the following, "child" is defined as a person with an age between 0 and 10 years. "Youth" and "youngster" refers to persons between 10 and 18 years. Also, the Child and Youth Protection Agency is referred to as "CAYPA".

II. This law is valid for children and youngsters.

III. The goverment must found the CAYPA.
a. This agency must be contactable by every child and youngster. Information how to contact is shall be visible in schools and public buildings.
b. This agency must be contacted by persons whose profession is dedicated to the well-being of children and youngsters when they think parents infrige the Public Education Act or the International Law Act. This include all public personnel as well as doctors and psychiatrists.

IV. Parents who actively act against the previous mentioned laws must receive punishment settled by a court.
a. Parents who for the first time, according to the court, neglect their parental duties, shall receive special treatment and observation by the CAYPA.
b. Parents who receive three punishments from the court, not regarding whether the reasons behind are related to children and youngsters or not, will be forced to hand over all their children to the CAYPA.
c. Parents who violently abuse one or more child or youngster shall, in addition to the loss of their children to the CAYPA, receive extra punishment in the form of imprisonment.
d. Parents who sexually abuse one or more child or youngster shall, in addition to the loss of their children to the CAYPA, receive the highest punishment setable by the court.

V. Children and youngsters who have been taken away from their family by the CAYPA shall receive special treatment.
a. Those children and youngsters shall receive special psychological treatment.
b. Those children and youngsters shall be handed over to a foster family specially chosen by the CAYPA.
c. Those foster families shall be granted the rights mentioned in the Family Incentives Act.

---

Epilogue
The well-being of children and youngster, as they are seen as less powerful than adults, must be granted in everyy civilized society. Aurentina must care about its next generation.

But why a minimum of two parents? There are single parents you know.

i know that --> "IV. Single families, meaning one of the partners left the partnership by cancelling the relationship or death so only one part is left must receive the following treatment:
a. The incentives mentioned in II.a. and II.c. must be doubled. The age limits stay the same.
b. The reduction mentioned in III.a. must be doubled. The age limit mentioned in III.c. must remain the same.
c. II.b. and III.b. also apply for single families.
d. II.d. also applies for single families."

[Neo Rome Republic]

^

I've never said give up, I again support the Progress Coalition and I'm not saying we leave to appease Brit...

I'll quote one thing I said and I hope this time you read it...

I support the NDP and I support Divair's decision to keep us in the Progress Coalition

You said you'd prefer a more centrist coalition, where we'd have to take a more centrist position and more compromise, I'm simply wondering in what way would that be better, than what we have now?

[Britanno]

You said you'd prefer a more centrist coalition, where we'd have to take a more centrist position and more compromise, I'm simply wondering in what way would that be better, than what we have now?

How do you know you'd have to make more of a compromise?

The NDP is a fairly centrist party. It is left, but not incredibly left. A centrist coalition would consist of a few small parties, and then the huge NDP. Now, my personal vision for a centrist coalition is one in which the thing that sets the left apart from the right, economics, would not be strict in coalition platform.

There are things that the centre-right and centre-left both agree on in economics, and those would be the things stated in the platform. You probably agree on more things economy related with the centre-right than the communists.

So what a centrist coalition does is this. It prevents the far left and far right from getting into governemnt. It means that you do not have to compromise on your beliefs. It means you still have a good chance of getting into power.

What the Progress Coalition does is this. It gets the far left into government. It forces the right to unify with the far right, thus meaning that no matter who wins the election, extremists get into government. It means you do not have to compromise on your beliefs, unless the far left decide they want a better deal. It means you have a good chance of getting into power.

[Bering]

You said you'd prefer a more centrist coalition, where we'd have to take a more centrist position and more compromise, I'm simply wondering in what way would that be better, than what we have now?

How do you know you'd have to make more of a compromise?

The NDP is a fairly centrist party. It is left, but not incredibly left. A centrist coalition would consist of a few small parties, and then the huge NDP. Now, my personal vision for a centrist coalition is one in which the thing that sets the left apart from the right, economics, would not be strict in coalition platform.

There are things that the centre-right and centre-left both agree on in economics, and those would be the things stated in the platform. You probably agree on more things economy related with the centre-right than the communists.

So what a centrist coalition does is this. It prevents the far left and far right from getting into governemnt. It means that you do not have to compromise on your beliefs. It means you still have a good chance of getting into power.

What the Progress Coalition does is this. It gets the far left into government. It forces the right to unify with the far right, thus meaning that no matter who wins the election, extremists get into government. It means you do not have to compromise on your beliefs, unless the far left decide they want a better deal. It means you have a good chance of getting into power.

I understand what you are saying, but the Far-left is not only willing to work with us, but also agrees with most of our views and supports us.
If the far-left become a huge problem for us, we will see what we can do, until then we go with a coalition that has served us well rather than risking alienate good allies by joining a coalition that we're not sure will even work.

[Neo Rome Republic]

You said you'd prefer a more centrist coalition, where we'd have to take a more centrist position and more compromise, I'm simply wondering in what way would that be better, than what we have now?

How do you know you'd have to make more of a compromise?

The NDP is a fairly centrist party. It is left, but not incredibly left. A centrist coalition would consist of a few small parties, and then the huge NDP. Now, my personal vision for a centrist coalition is one in which the thing that sets the left apart from the right, economics, would not be strict in coalition platform.

There are things that the centre-right and centre-left both agree on in economics, and those would be the things stated in the platform. You probably agree on more things economy related with the centre-right than the communists.

So what a centrist coalition does is this. It prevents the far left and far right from getting into governemnt. It means that you do not have to compromise on your beliefs. It means you still have a good chance of getting into power.

What the Progress Coalition does is this. It gets the far left into government. It forces the right to unify with the far right, thus meaning that no matter who wins the election, extremists get into government. It means you do not have to compromise on your beliefs, unless the far left decide they want a better deal. It means you have a good chance of getting into power.

Well I don't really worry about the Commies, they aren't a very active party. If what you say is true about us being closer to the centre and centre-right parties than to the Left wing parties, why does the person who wrote the NDP platform disagree? Also since the Commies aren't very active, I only have to worry about the Socialist Action, who themselves have compromised on the coalition platform, and the last time they tried to get an extreme bill passed, such as nationalizing the police, no one one supported it.There are enough moderates, to keep the extremists in line. Also as I've said, I have no problem with the Red-Greens or the Market Socialists. So again, why should I support giving up this coalition, if the pros greatly outweigh the cons? There is no need to risk ideological dominance, I certainly don't intend to.

[Britanno]

I understand what you are saying, but the Far-left is not only willing to work with us, but also agrees with most of our views and supports us.

Just like much of the centre-right would if you were in a coalition with them. What makes you so sure that the centre-right doesn't want to work with you? The centre-right also agrees with you on may things you know.

If the far-left become a huge problem for us, we will see what we can do, until then we go with a coalition that has served us well rather than risking alienate good allies by joining a coalition that we're not sure will even work.

Nobody knew if the Progress Coalition would work, but did it?

[Bering]

I understand what you are saying, but the Far-left is not only willing to work with us, but also agrees with most of our views and supports us.

Just like much of the centre-right would if you were in a coalition with them. What makes you so sure that the centre-right doesn't want to work with you? The centre-right also agrees with you on may things you know.

If the far-left become a huge problem for us, we will see what we can do, until then we go with a coalition that has served us well rather than risking alienate good allies by joining a coalition that we're not sure will even work.

Nobody knew if the Progress Coalition would work, but did it?

1. The center-right agrees with the much of the party line, I am a Social Democrat and former Red-Green, I doubt me and the centre-right would agree on much

2. your point? It DOES WORK, why change something that is good for us?

[Divair]

What makes you so sure that the centre-right doesn't want to work with you?

So the CMP, Reform, and the libertarians would go for this platform in its entirety?

[Ainin]

What makes you so sure that the centre-right doesn't want to work with you?

The fact that it took 30 pages of debate to settle on nothing but a name last time we tried this?

[Britanno]

What makes you so sure that the centre-right doesn't want to work with you?

The fact that it took 30 pages of debate to settle on nothing but a name last time we tried this?

I'm pretty sure we did get a platform, but it became a debate again when we were forced to invite the CMP to negotiations.

The power of the centre has grown, while the far left and far right have been decreasing in numbers.

[Bering]

The fact that it took 30 pages of debate to settle on nothing but a name last time we tried this?

I'm pretty sure we did get a platform, but it became a debate again when we were forced to invite the CMP to negotiations.

The power of the centre has grown, while the far left and far right have been decreasing in numbers.

How so?

[Bering]

Okay, Britanno I have one question that I want you to answer as clearly as possible

How will leaving the Progressive Coalition benefit the party?
I don't want Ifs or it could happen that... (No the far Left could...)
I want a clear and pragmatic answer for why leaving a coalition that works to take a chance on a coalition that might not work, might not agree with us, and will anger and alienate our current "Far-Left" allies that have only supported us.

(Edit: and a list of possible coalition members)

[Britanno]

How will leaving the Progressive Coalition benefit the party?

It will mean that we can remain in a powerful coalition that has the most members. We will have a very good chance of getting into governemnt. We will alienate extremists. We willnot have to compromise our beliefs like some suggest.

(Edit: and a list of possible coalition members)

NDP
NCP
RefP
SLP

[Next Washington]

as i observed this discussion for some time i decided to do some maths concerning the progress coalition...

... so here#s my result:

NDP+NCP+RefP+SLP=47%

new democratic party+reform party+libertarian party of aurentina+national centre party=50,99%.... +slp (10 membes when official party)=53,80%...

whereas the progress coalition is at 65,80%