New Democratic Party [NSG Senate | HQ]

[Divair]

You vastly underestimate the desire for revenge.

I've been in a coalition with them (with my last senator). I know them far better than you and while they always want revenge, the far right would never vote for communists.

I've posted with these people on General and in the Senate for longer than you. Some of them have been here since I joined the forum over four years ago. I know them better than you do. You're willing to risk everything just because you dislike seeing the left in power, even though the platform is all that matters.

[Next Washington]

the far right would never vote for communists.

right

the center would be the lesser of two evils

[Britanno]

I've posted with these people on General and in the Senate for longer than you. Some of them have been here since I joined the forum over four years ago. I know them better than you do. You're willing to risk everything just because you dislike seeing the left in power, even though the platform is all that matters.

So if the platform is all that matters, if the fascists agreed to ratify the PC platform! the PC should welcome them with open arms?

NSG has nothing here, not very many of them are actually fascists. As for the senate, yes you have been here longer than me but have you ever gone into coalition negotiations with them multiple times?

[Maklohi Vai]

The issue is risk-reward. What do we gain by leaving? The only concrete thing that Brit has been able to bring up is leaving extremists out of office, yet this isn't even an issue. Currently, the NDP dominates the Progress Coalition to the extent that we'll take about half the ministries and 2 or 3 executive spots. We outweigh the further left elements by a decent margin, and frankly it's not such a big deal to have them in office. They're sensible, reasonable people who are easy to work with if you don't piss them off, i.e. normal people. I think that's something that Brit is ignoring here; in his vision, it's as if extremists in office will overshadow all the good work that the NDP can do. Ergo, Britanno shows no benefits from leaving the Progress Coalition. As for the harms, I won't go into great detail, but it boils down to stability (we have it now), history (it's on the side of the status quo), and dependency (we have it in the status quo).

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?

Maybe it's just my feelings, but this rhetorical question just doesn't sit well with me. No, I didn't know if it would work, but nonetheless I went ahead and organized the coalition essentially from scratch with no precedent whatsoever. That is the key that you're missing: precedent. No, nobody knew if the ProgCoa would work, but we didn't have anything to lose by trying to form it. On the contrary, we have a lot to lose by trying to form this center coalition now. Ergo, your rhetoric is highly flawed here.

[Bering]

What is stopping a SAP-COM-RG-MS-PMP-NDP Coalition from wining? Nothing because we are winning right now, so leaving makes no sense.

It makes sense if there are more advantages of a centrist coalition.

Something that we could not gain from our current Coalition?
and what benefits would it have that we don't already have?

AND? Without a majority they will not be able to do much, besides I fail to see how the Communists are doing any bad things right now, wouldn't putting them in government and forcing them to work with more center parties moderate them more? Leaving them out will only make them more extreme and possibly dangerous.

I suppose if fascists agreed to our platform and didn't do anything too bad we could find space for them as well somehow.

That's for the the Far-Right to sort out, The communists have not been a problem for us and it would not serve us to kick them out when they have done nothing wrong

So...less than we have now, right now all the parties in the ProgCo agree Economically and Socially (More or less) and what about all the things we don't agree on?

Did you just say that communists more or less agree with you on economics?

They agree with what we put on the floor, that is enough for me, to us it is achieving a goal, to them it is a step in the right direction, and remember SOCIAL DEMOCRAT

Other things? Considering that NDP will have the power to make or break the coalition, I'm sure the centre-right parties would happily compromise.

Your sure, you don't know for a fact?
And again why risk it?

So kick out another good ally of the NDP because you can't deal with them?
A majority of the party supports both of these parties and leaving them out will only hurt any possible coalition more.

If you allowed the RGs in, it would scare away the rightists unless they were allowed to bring in another, slightly further right, party such as the CMP or LP. A majority of the party supports staying in the PC, I'm still arguing for it.

Okay we can say good bye to them and invite a further Left Party like the Communists, and if we need more the SAP, wait this seems familiar...
They can either agree or we can stick with our current winning combination

No, the question is how much will we gain from this risk?
Nothing, we will isolate the "Far-Left" which has done...how many crazy extremist things recently?

Considering you'd be running a coalition, you'd probably gain the coalition presidency candidate, along with another executive position. Hell, the rightists might even let you have PM and Pres.

We still need a working majority for voting and I don't want to take a risk on a might

What crazy things have the far right done recently?

I don't know

Why don't we let them in?

We are the ProgCo, the Right can deal with the Right
We are dealing with people who agree with our platforms
and you never answered my question

How risky is this risk?

Which Risk? All of them seem like things we shouldn't bother with when we have nothing to lose from staying with our current path
The NDP supports the Progressive Coalition, as does a majority of the party
If you don't like how the party his run you are free to leave and try your best at forming a Center Coaltion, because it won't happen here, the NDP is not only a centre-left party, we also have many Social Democrats, and as one I (and I am not speaking for anyone other than myself) will tell you, any possible Center Coalition (especially one that you can't even prove is viable) will not be better for me than our current one

[Neo Rome Republic]

the far right would never vote for communists.

right

the center would be the lesser of two evils

Uh huh. Keep thinking that.

[Divair]

So if the platform is all that matters, if the fascists agreed to ratify the PC platform! the PC should welcome them with open arms?

Sure. The platform is all that matters. If the party or their ministers violate the platform, they get kicked out. It's very simple, y'know.

NSG has nothing here, not very many of them are actually fascists. As for the senate, yes you have been here longer than me but have you ever gone into coalition negotiations with them multiple times?

The personalities of posters do not dramatically change when they decide to RP coalition negotiations.

[Britanno]

Unfortunately I have to leave now, but I will address your points whenever I can. I was worried this would be an immature debate, but thankfully it all went smoothly without basic slander.

[Bering]

I've posted with these people on General and in the Senate for longer than you. Some of them have been here since I joined the forum over four years ago. I know them better than you do. You're willing to risk everything just because you dislike seeing the left in power, even though the platform is all that matters.

So if the platform is all that matters, if the fascists agreed to ratify the PC platform! the PC should welcome them with open arms?

NSG has nothing here, not very many of them are actually fascists. As for the senate, yes you have been here longer than me but have you ever gone into coalition negotiations with them multiple times?

You know I can't take it,
You keep saying what if the Fascists this or what if the Fascists that and then we will have to let them in
Let me ask you when would the Fascists ever do this? you keep saying it over and over, but we all know it won't happen and if it by some miracle does, not only would they not be Fascist anymore, but then we would also be bound to voting along those lines or we'd kick them from the coalition, it's how they work

[Bering]

Unfortunately I have to leave now, but I will address your points whenever I can. I was worried this would be an immature debate, but thankfully it all went smoothly without basic slander.

I enjoyed it too other than the fact you kept bring up Fascists in increasing unlikely scenarios, other than that, I think it has been going well and look forward to debating with you more when you return

[Battlion]

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...

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?

Mostly out of economics than anything else, I don't agree with some measures that some of the people further left than me do and by my compass I am centre-right...

My ideal coalition would be MSP-RG-NDP-NCP-SLP

A lot have been keen to say that we dominate the ProgCoalition so why move, we'd dominate any Coalition we join so that is a pretty moot point. I don't doubt our numbers are good now, I never have and I believe me and Brit are more open to a Centrist Coalition out of ideology and belief rather than "tried once, oh well"

I am Centre-Right, yet I mostly agree with the NDP platform but that doesn't make me centre-left and whether some like it or not the NDP isn't as left wing as you all like to think it is centre-left not fully left... This means we can tamper to the centre, ideologically I think the Coalition I proposed could work together whether it works numerically I am not 100% sure but once more I am content with the current arrangement but I reserve my right to vote against things I don't agree with.

[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?

Mostly out of economics than anything else, I don't agree with some measures that some of the people further left than me do and by my compass I am centre-right...

My ideal coalition would be MSP-RG-NDP-NCP-SLP

A lot have been keen to say that we dominate the ProgCoalition so why move, we'd dominate any Coalition we join so that is a pretty moot point. I don't doubt our numbers are good now, I never have and I believe me and Brit are more open to a Centrist Coalition out of ideology and belief rather than "tried once, oh well"

I am Centre-Right, yet I mostly agree with the NDP platform but that doesn't make me centre-left and whether some like it or not the NDP isn't as left wing as you all like to think it is centre-left not fully left... This means we can tamper to the centre, ideologically I think the Coalition I proposed could work together whether it works numerically I am not 100% sure but once more I am content with the current arrangement but I reserve my right to vote against things I don't agree with.

Nah the platform of the party is just the way I like it, and so is the platform of the coalition. My apologizes, I forgot you were centre-right, I can see why you'd want a centrist coalition, however as someone like me who is on the centre-Left, I like the spectrum of the current coalition, I prefer a coalition closer to my ideas. Basically, I want an ideologically Centre-left/left-wing dominated coalition super-majority, and I hope it stays that way.

[Bering]

Mostly out of economics than anything else, I don't agree with some measures that some of the people further left than me do and by my compass I am centre-right...

My ideal coalition would be MSP-RG-NDP-NCP-SLP

A lot have been keen to say that we dominate the ProgCoalition so why move, we'd dominate any Coalition we join so that is a pretty moot point. I don't doubt our numbers are good now, I never have and I believe me and Brit are more open to a Centrist Coalition out of ideology and belief rather than "tried once, oh well"

I am Centre-Right, yet I mostly agree with the NDP platform but that doesn't make me centre-left and whether some like it or not the NDP isn't as left wing as you all like to think it is centre-left not fully left... This means we can tamper to the centre, ideologically I think the Coalition I proposed could work together whether it works numerically I am not 100% sure but once more I am content with the current arrangement but I reserve my right to vote against things I don't agree with.

Nah the platform of the party is just the way I like it, and so is the platform of the coalition. My apologizes, I forgot you were centre-right, I can see why you'd want a centrist coalition, however as someone like me who is on the centre-Left, I like the spectrum of the current coalition, I prefer a coalition closer to my ideas. Basically, I want an ideologically Centre-left/left-wing dominated coalition super-majority, and I hope it stays that way.

I think that's true for everyone, everyone wants their ideology to be dominant and for the this party we have achieved it rather well with the Progress Coalition

[Neo Rome Republic]

Nah the platform of the party is just the way I like it, and so is the platform of the coalition. My apologizes, I forgot you were centre-right, I can see why you'd want a centrist coalition, however as someone like me who is on the centre-Left, I like the spectrum of the current coalition, I prefer a coalition closer to my ideas. Basically, I want an ideologically Centre-left/left-wing dominated coalition super-majority, and I hope it stays that way.

I think that's true for everyone, everyone wants their ideology to be dominant and for the this party we have achieved it rather well with the Progress Coalition

Which is exactly why I support this party, and the Progress coalition.

[Geilinor]

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?

My ideal coalition would be MSP-RG-NDP-NCP-SLP

We're so large that the NDP would dominate whichever coalition we're in. What I could support is an expansion, with the NCP or SLP joining.

[Geilinor]

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?

whether some like it or not the NDP isn't as left wing as you all like to think it is centre-left not fully left

Who called the NDP left-wing? Nobody. Also, we are not intended to be a centrist party, we can't tamper with that. If we become centrist, what separates us from the NCP or SLP? This was the merger of two center-left parties, not centrist ones.

[Next Washington]

looking for sponsors...

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 two people who have one or more child(ren) 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. Both 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 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.

[CTALNH]

looking for sponsors...

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 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. Both 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 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.

Sponsoring.

[Battlion]

Why is a family defined as 2 parents and one child... what about single parent families?

[CTALNH]

Why is a family defined as 2 parents and one child... what about single parent families?

What about free spirited families?

[The Nihilistic view]

Why is a family defined as 2 parents and one child... what about single parent families?

It doesn't. It says one or more child.


I can see where the bad grammar confused you though.

[CTALNH]

Why is a family defined as 2 parents and one child... what about single parent families?

What about free spirited families?

Hem!

[Battlion]

I. In the following, "family" is defined as a two people who have one or more child of which they are fully responsible.


"Two people who have one or more child" That is still 2 parents...

If it was "two people including one or more child" then I could understand, but in addition why do we need to define family in legislation?

[The Nihilistic view]

What about free spirited families?

Hem!

Being honest here I don't even know what a free spirited family is.

[CTALNH]

Hem!

Being honest here I don't even know what a free spirited family is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_relationship