Ausitorian Elections! [MT] [Open]

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

---

Article from the New Alexandrian Courante online version; 20th November, 2015, Assorted Ausitorian Standard Time
Subsidiary of the ABC

---

Currently trending on #ElectionDebate:
What does the triple-standard of interventionism actually mean?
Local government reforms debate revisited: Who really represents the grassroots?
Bvordxan independence plan: Why did we bother?

Elections!
So liberal, even foreigners get to vote now?

Three weeks to go, and the polls predict an incredibly tight result. Will the Liberals hold on to their majority to govern over the Federation? Will they be forced to choose between coalition and minority government? What if no government can be formed?

In perhaps the most exciting election since the War of the Protectorates nearly three decades ago, three major parties and innumerable smaller parties shall compete for seats in the Commons and Assembly in the Federation’s first election, carried out under first past the post.

In addition, for the first time ever, there will be elections for a hundred seats in the Lords and Senate International Congress, carried out under proportional representation, an open vote by any free citizens from around the world*. (Only parties with a seat in the Commons and Assembly can run in the International Congress, with a few special exceptions already granted to prominent national parties in close allies).

In case you've been living in a hole somewhere (seriously, who hasn't noticed the ridiculous dress sense of Ausitorian Liberals?) here, in order of their current seats, is a summary of the parties and their positions:

---

Major Parties:

---

Coalition of Liberal Free Traders

A ‘pragmatic’ party ‘of freedom and tolerance’, ruled by their ‘quest for ever greater prosperity’, usually by diversity and trade, the Liberals have historically dominated elections in the Home Realms and in the Panian Confederacy, and are in coalition with a number of local conservative parties throughout the United Realms and Borethnia. They have been widely accused of being ‘neo-imperialist’, ‘unprincipled’, ‘power-hungry’, and 'incomprehensible'.

Leader

Sir Henry Taylor, BA (Econ), shot to stardom when made a relatively junior Minister for the United Realms by the current Prime Minister Sir Charles Perques, in charge of an expanding brief that rapidly grew to cover three billion people before federalization. A 'masterfully inactive' moderate with constant support from the powerful Foreign Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, he was elected by his party to run as leader for the election, and is expected to be the next Prime Minister, even if the Liberals loose a majority – unless coalition negotiations and minority government fails.

Foreign and Military Policy

In the last parliament, the Liberal Coalition has presided over the expansion of the Aestorian Empire, the creation of the Federation, and more wars than the thirty years beforehand. Their foreign interventionism finally came unstuck over the Wagwater crisis, and they have reigned in their policy and outspoken Foreign Minister, the Turqoise Prince Kazpia, by adopting multilateralism. However their foreign policy has been criticized as ‘neo-imperialist’.

Economic Policy

The liberal party have been widely commended by economists for achieving significant development of the former colonies and high economic returns with an eye on the environment, and health, achieving c. 3% GDP growth per annum across the Commonwealth and lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, providing Ausitoria with much needed cheaper unit labour costs and a significant industrial base for international shocks. However their high budget spending – 62.4% of GDP – has been criticized as ‘absurdly unfair on hard workers’, especially in comparison with international standards, despite direct government spending being less than half that, with most of the budget allocated to pensions or private spending allowances in Education, Health, and Social Welfare.

The Liberal Party is a strong supporter of education, scientific research, city growth, public transport, international trade and liquidity, and the pragmatic use of big data and privatization to increase efficiency. However they have been widely criticized for the effect of foreign crises on dampening consumer and investor confidence.

In addition the Liberal Party has been have been criticized for presiding over the deindustrialization in the wake of the annexation of Bvordxa, leading to riots, terrorist attacks, and finally a path to independence negotiated earlier this year, at an expense to the Imperial Commonwealth of $12 trillion in aid over the coming decade.

Social Policy

The Liberal Coalition’s social policy, with a package of gay marriage, legalized prostitution, well-enforced transgender rights, minimal drug regulation, light pornography regulation, strongly-enforced anti-racism legislation, easy immigration, and staggered ages of consent as standard in all areas of the Commonwealth, has raised eyebrows in more traditional parts of the federation, and been widely criticized as ‘an attack on social decency and family values’. It has been considered a contributory factor to Bvordxa’s struggle for independence. However the Liberal party has defended its liberal stances on the grounds of ‘freeing creative innovation’.

---

Social Labour Coalition

A ‘principled’ party ‘of equality’, desiring ‘fairness for all’ with better-distributed spending, the labour party is a major force throughout the realms. Currently the second largest party, the Social Labour party are in coalition with a number of centre-left supporters. They have been widely accused of being ‘unrealistic’, ‘naïve’, and ‘bankrupters’.

Leader

Fionna Thomason, BPhS (Statistics), rose to prominence as Shadow Secretary for Foreign Affairs formulating the Social Labour Party’s stance on interventionism and Bvordxa, arguing for a more cautious approach to foreign policy, and coming to be seen as being one step ahead of the government. Originally on the moderate wing of her party, she moved to the 'mad left' to win the primary when the previous party leader resigned for health reasons. She is expected to be open to the idea of cutting a deal with the Liberal Party, although she has said she would prefer another election first.

Foreign and Military Policy

In light of the ‘imperialist fiasco’, the Social Labour party desires a change to a non-interventionist foreign policy to focus on international collaboration spreading equality and development and addressing world issues such as climate changes. The Social Labour party desires an immediate reduction in military spending to provide money for improving healthcare faster in less well supplied areas. They have been criticized for ‘wilful ignorance of the dangerous world’.

Socio-economic Policy

The Social Labour Coalition is strongly against the current formula whereby government spending in areas is half weighted by local purchasing power parity and a quarter weighted by revenue as standard, and the current formula of weighting government pay and minimum wage ($11,231 per year) by local purchasing power parity, citing it as ‘an affront to equality and fairness’ and ‘a sign that the government has no intention to speed the increase in living standards in marginalized communities’. They also wish to reign in privatization ‘experiments’ by re-nationalizing or closely monitoring and regulating ‘essential and national services’ such as beaches, hospitals, schools, and banks.

They have been criticized for ‘budgets which don’t add up and hidden assumptions of tax rises’, and ‘a fundamental inability to understand the processes of individual innovation, putting millions of private sector jobs at risk’. However they have stated they would not bring in further taxes on the poorest half of the population, and that ‘the private sector has no accountability’.

On other social issues, the Social Labour party has supported the Liberals on the grounds of ‘equal rights’, although some members have taken issue with low ages of consent and the thriving ‘immoral’ industries.

---

Conservative Federalist Coalition

A ‘principled’ party ‘of common sense’, desiring ‘local undivided societies’ with less immigration and lower taxes, there have always been conservatives throughout the realms. Currently the third largest party, the Conservative Federalists are in coalition with a number of rightist supporters. They have been widely accused of being ‘isolationist’, ‘little-minders’, and ‘closet racists’.

Leader:

Sir Adolphus Fitzamber, BA (Government), rose to prominence by 'sinisterly ousting' the former party leader to turn libertarianism into the party focus, instead of blind anti-immigration policies, and subsequently developed the party’s regionalist credentials before swinging back to the centre ground in the wake of the federalization and social strains imposed. He is relatively sanguine about the Party’s prospects at the 2020 general election ‘if the current liberal government goes on for another five years’.

Foreign and Military Policy

In light of the ‘Interventionist fiasco’, the Conservative Federalist party desires a change to a non-interventionist foreign policy to focus on defending Aestorian borders and the concept of national sovereignty. They also desire that military spending be largely refocused away from offensive carriers and strike forces towards defensive missile defence and an increase in the reserve army. They have been variously accused of being ‘unimaginatively naïve’ and ‘armchair generals’.

Socio-economic Policy

The Conservative Federalist party desires a shift in government spending away from the centralized state towards local taxes and spending and a looser federation, allowing significant tax cuts in the richer parts of the country and more ‘popular grassroots government’. However they have been accused of ‘desiring the reinstatement of trade barriers and the end of the union’. They also wish to lower corporation taxes on small businesses, loosen regulation of major financial institutions, a move criticized as ‘potentially highly dangerous’, and force the Central Bank to adopt a 2-2.5% inflation target to ‘stop using inflation as a vehicle of social policy’, a plan criticized as ‘a retrograde step to unreal targeting’.

The Conservative Party desires that states be given ‘significant flexibility to set social policies according to local preferences’, a plan criticized as ‘endangering the standard of tolerance’, and defended as ‘a question of moral decency’ and ‘local considerations and empowerment’.

---

Minor Parties participating globally for the International Congress:

---

Bvordxan Nationalist Party

The ‘National’ Party ‘of Bvordxa’, currently the fourth largest party, is running for seats in International Congress to ensure that the ‘Ausitorian Imperialists’ stick to their side of the Independence agreement and ‘do not try to bully Bvordxa or any country like it ever again’. They have been widely criticized as ‘a bunch of ungrateful unimaginative xenophobic fruitcake racists and bigots’.

They have confirmed that on all other issues they will vote with the Conservative coalition.

The Liberation Coalition

The ‘Liberation Coalition’, currently the fifth largest party, is running for seats in the International Congress to gain support for their campaigns for greater self-government from ‘Ausitorian Imperialists’ and free and fair independence referenda. They have been widely criticized as ‘irrelevant’, ‘largely unsupported’, ‘pitiful’, ‘insecure’ and ‘a bit silly and pointless’.

They have stated that they will generally align on socio-economic issues with the Conservative coalition.

The Green Party

The International Green Party, a new outfit with no MPs, has received special permission to run for seats in the International Congress. Their aim is to ‘promote good environmental science and closely scrutinize and support the Aestorian Government to that end’. They have been widely criticized as 'still slightly loony and anti-scientific'.

They have confirmed that while they do not object to nuclear power plants in themselves, ‘there are legitimate concerns about waste storage and the carbon footprint involved in nuclear plant construction, and such matters should be addressed as much as possible’. They have also confirmed that while they do not object to GMO in themselves, ‘evidence must be carefully considered to avoid out-of-control breeding effecting wild stocks, and labelling should be used to ensure customer choice’.

---

Excited?

We at the ABC are.

A Leaders’ debate between the three main parties will be held on the 25th November. Send your questions by the following form:

Code: Select all

Your name (location and affiliation optional):
Question directed too (optional):
Question:

[Novo Wagondia]

Your name: Manuel Morelos, private citizen, Porto Alegre, Wagondia
Question directed too: Sir Henry Taylor, Coalition of Liberal Free Traders
Question: "Sir Taylor, your Liberal Coalition is much admired in Wagondia for its commitment to progressive thinking and equality among peoples, though concerns arise when the stringent regulations on racism are brought into the question. While it is of course easy to dismiss the message of radically racist groups, how can your party uphold its morally tolerant high ground when free speech and expression is extended only towards a certain spectrum of ideologies? Furthermore, what is the scope of these regulations? Does the government draw a line between hate speech and workplace discrimination, for example? And how does one definitively determine the extent of radicalism a government should permit?"

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

25th November

Harry Humblebey: Good morning. Welcome to Triforums, Alexandria, in Ausitoria. Today the three major party leaders come head-to-head for this, the Aestorian 2015 elections televised debate. The questions will come from the audience here and from among thousands of emails and meows which have been sent during the week.

The leaders have not been told the questions in advance, and will be given a minute to answer each question, and then five to ten minutes for debate.

The first question goes to Margaret Burnwood, and is addressed to Fiona. With the constant debate in the Labour Party, what is your position on local government? Fiona.

Fiona Thomason: Local government is an important way for the government to interact with local communities as part of the larger Commonwealth. The government is often accused of being remote - the conservatives stand for separatist nationalism and the liberals stand for the impersonal large cities. We would work to create a more sensitive government, sensitive to all the different levels on which societies operate, and allow local governments to raise additional money to fund local projects for the wider community... There has been debate in the Labour Party, but the important thing is to be sensitive to the people and the popular voice, all the way through to the individual level.

HH: Henry.

Henry Taylor: That ... is a very important point. One must do what the people want. But what they want is government at a level that works, that can get things done, not some wishy-washy meeting of three nosy busybodies on one side of the road grumbling about the residents on the other side of the road. Local government is important - too important to be done by a few neighbours, and even MPs in the Labour party know it. You wouldn't give defence to local government! That's why we must give powers to organisations on appropriate planning levels - it was the liberals who introduced the regional governments, and gave power to the cities - successful experiments. And ... Let me just say this one point, Sir Harry - we must not go down the path of separatism and division either. Is this what we have fought wars for?

HH: Adolphus.

Adolphus Fitzamber: For a party which is meant to be 'pragmatic' and unprincipled, the liberal party has hardly done a very good job at keeping the states together. Different cultures have different ways of doing things. It is hardly realistic or pragmatic to blindly assume otherwise.

HH: Sir Henry?

HT: It is hardly realistic, pragmatic, or imaginative to give up. We are humans: we should want to get on for our own peace and prosperity.

HH: Fiona?

FT: We should want to get on - but are the liberals any good at it? Stuck in their Ivory cities, disdainful of the commoner, talking rubbish non-stop, never actually doing anything useful.

HH: Adolphus.

AF: We are never going to 'get on' unless we give other cultures a bit of personal space. You may like your relatives in moderation, but you wouldn't want them all staying with you forever, would you?

HH: Henry?

HT: You would if you saw the benefits they brought. Every individual has the imagination to create wealth: you seem to wish to kill the geese that lay the golden egg. There's no point in being so negative. As for results - if I may address Fiona's point - people want to be encouraged as individuals in a free and mobile society, not smothered by nosy committees.

FT: And how are you going to engage individuals with a faceless bureaucracy?

HT: Productively. More productively than high-tax busybodies pestering people for more money and sticking their noses and leaflets through private letterboxes.

HH: Adolphus - closing statements please.

AF: Cultures need a breathing space after the failures of the last government, and that is what we can give them.

HH: Short and to the point - thank you. Fiona.

FT: People need to be engaged, they want to be engaged, and we will empower local councils to create a more sensitive, open government.

HH: Thank you. Henry.

HT: With high taxes and separatists? We need a government that works, one that takes decisions at the appropriate levels, and that gives freedom to all, and if you look at our record, nothing succeeds like success.

HH: Thank you. Next question. For Sir Henry Taylor, from James Sackville. Why has your foreign policy been such an atrocious failure, impacting our economic livelihoods that you proudly pretend to protect?

HT: Actually, if you look at the figures wholistically, we have been most successful - the Chattakang system is an enormous vibrant dynamic economy, building on the strengths of the Home Realms to make one of the greatest economies. We have lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, we have developed infrastructure and broadband wifi to connect us, bringing billions of people together. We have ended slavery in Bavungria, we have ended the dictatorships over Bvordxa, we brought peace to Helltank and Silverfield and Pongolia, we have liberated Wagwater, Ailanor, and Publarcania, we have broadly friendly relations with our neighbours, and with many far-off allies. Of course we have been unlucky and misjudged the situation in Firmador, and relations with the axis were never going to be good. But we have learned from our mistakes and we have improved our procedures and the international situation, to enormous economies of scale across the Commonwealth countries.

HH: Fiona.

FT: Perhaps as a statistician I have the advantage over the Prime Minister, but the liberal imperialist foreign policy has brought misery on Bvordxa and across the entire nation. I quote the Institute of Statistical Policy Analysis - the mis-steps of foreign policy have cost the Imperial Commonwealth about 10% of GDP - enough to give everyone an income tax cut of over a quarter. Nothing fails like failure, eh, Henry? And the Liberals accuse us of being profligate. What we need is a foreign policy that does not make enemies - expensive enemies. What we need is a foreign policy which actually has the backing of foreigners: we must work with the world not against them.

HH: Adolphus.

AF: Why should we try to work with a world that dislikes us? That is unrealistic, and for a party which preaches pragmatism the Liberals should also know it. We have made some gains, but that has been more by luck than judgement. Even the liberals confess that they have been misjudgements. Well, why should we continue with this silly adventurist interventionism? We have all that we want, let us defend ourselves and stop meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries.

HT: Foreign countries can hardly be left to their own affairs. Look at Heilanor. Look at the world around. You have no imagination if you refuse to see how we could, and how we do make the world better. As for a single misjudgement, one never knows when one is going to be successful in advance: we have been experimenting, and I repeat our experiments have been on average a success - you quote that the mis-steps of foreign policy equate to 10% of GDP: well the same report says that the successes of our foreign policy equate to about 20%! So we make one mistake, a mistake that could not be seen without the benefit of foresight, and we make ten successes, and we gain 10%: that is how an imaginative, innovative, effective government works.

FT: Betting with the future, experimenting with our livelihoods.

AF: And in the process you ruin the principle of national sovereignty and the defence of our own borders, sending soldiers overseas to their deaths.

HT: Noble deaths, saving many multiples of lives: Aestoria is not just for us: we thrive as part of the interconnected world - you think...

[Hubbub of voices]

HH: Henry.

HT: You think if you close your eyes you can't see the enemies of the free world and they can't see you? You think we are unaffected by the wider world? We must be engaged with the world if we are to shape it in our own image.

HH: Fiona.

FT: Engaged, yes, but not insensitively, or we will create our own enemies in a never-ending circle. It's the same old ivory spires all over again and armchair generals.

HH: Adolphus.

AF: We must be sensitive to the international situation - one of international sovereignty. This reckless misguided interventionism is absurdly wasteful of our opportunities.

HT: It is our opportunities.

FT: We must work together with other nations, not be imperialist.

HT: It is our opportunities: we do not know in advance what will work and what will not work, the best we can do is keep going knowing that if we improve we will get better, and that is what we have done, and what we are doing: overall, the number of foreign policy triumphs substantially outweighs the number of foreign policy failures and we shall never make the same mistake twice.

AF: So yes, you’re experimenting with our livelihoods?

HT: Why do people always want the false and impossible security of certainty? This is not some trivial neat mathematics problem: the real world is complicated and it is naïve to think otherwise.

AF: Why don’t you get out of the rest of the world then?

HT: Because us Liberals know roughly what we’re doing – better than you seem too, anyway.

FT: Certainly nobody else has a clue what the Liberals are doing.

HT: It is a question of imagination. We imagine a better world, and then we go about making it, which is better than either of you two seem to be offering.

FT: Is Bvordxa better for your imperialism?

AF: Are the tax-payers better for your interventionism?

HT: The world is a better place, and our children and our children’s children will know that.

HH: Thank you. I think all your positions are perfectly clear. Clearly it’s a rather subjective question to discuss. Moving on the next question is also for Sir Henry Taylor, and comes from Manuel Morelos in Wagondia, on the subject of the series of anti-prejudice Orders issuing from the Government Policy Office. "How can your party uphold its morally tolerant high ground when free speech and expression is extended only towards a certain spectrum of ideologies and how does one definitively determine the extent of radicalism a government should permit?"

HT: Thank you. This is rather technical question so I shall need a little time to reply in some detail. The anti-prejudice orders from the Government Offices are a result of the roll-out of the Judicial memorandum issued way back during the Second Great War in Ausitoria, that discussed the point of view that as many freedoms and rights should be assumed for individuals unless such freedoms or rights interfered with the liberties of other individuals - for instance, if it makes one person happy to kill others, that is no good reason. Thus it is with the anti-prejudice right of equal opportunities, credited with lifting billions of Aestorians out of poverty - one should tolerate everything which does not interfere with the right to be tolerated. The assumption that liberties cannot interfere with other peoples' liberties means one must also be intolerant of all that interference with the principle of tolerance. Fortunately this is not incompatible upon close logical inspection and so that is the Aestorian policy and the opinion of the courts and we have simply been enabling it.

If I may finish - in practice, the plain fact of the matter is that, despite the perfect pure logic, it is not straightforward to decide what constitutes interference, but since these rights are essentially constitutional we must defer to the courts and their independent interpretation, which requires a great deal of discretionary powers and is essentially a matter for case-by-case study and scrutiny. Only thus can one maintain suitable liberties like equal opportunities which everybody can access to the great benefit of society.

HH: Adolphus.

AF: Again, a complicated answer which shows an overbearing government that loves the sound of its own voice intent upon forcing whatever its bureaucrats dream up onto the free citizens of the Commonwealth nations. How can a dictatorial government be tolerant of the distinct cultures? Clearly the government has broken has its own standards of tolerance and liberty.

HH: Fiona?

FT: The government has a duty to ensure the safety of individuals from abuse and intolerance, and although I applaud their intent, their manner is indeed audaciously complicated and difficult for people on the street to follow. Voters want a clearer policy, one that is properly free and democratically decided, instead of being laid down by some relic of judiciary-run government spreading its tentacles over the apparatus of state. The government must respect the limit of their powers and the importance of local consultation and sensitivies: they must not be too uninterested to listen.

HH: Henry.

HT: We do listen. As a democratically elected government, it is our duty to ensure that government policies - the policies in our manifesto, indeed, the policies on which we were elected - are the policies which are put into place. That they are complicated just goes to show the challenge. But one must not attempt to simplify what is a very complicated and non-trivial issue. The fundamental rights of all of us are at stake, and I think we do a very good job on defending rights properly, instead of all this nonsense about giving up to anarchy.

HH: Adolphus.

AF: People don't want dictatorial bureaucrats bossing around their lives! As a liberal you should know that.

HH: Fiona.

AF: The moderate position is that people should be more widely and democratically consulted on how to ensure tolerance.

HH: Henry.

HT: Sometimes a government must be strong to protect the rights of the people, and for all its complexity, the policy works - perfectly.

AF: Nonsense.

FT: As if.

HT: People want a government that works for them, for us – all of us.

FT: If it works properly, why did Bvordxa want to leave?

HT: A little bit of local unpopularity is hardly a reason to reverse a good policy, a policy supported by most people, a policy which protects innovation, diversity, and creativity; and a policy decided by a responsible independent and capable judiciary, perfectly suited for the purpose.

FT: So the loss of almost a tenth of the population for their disagreement is not a reason to reverse.

HT: We're talking about what is right and wrong, which is not a question of popularity. This is a technical question and if you're going to try to score political points about the activities of an independent judiciary we're not going to get anywhere with this debate.

FT: So Bvordxa is wrong?

HT: We have a difference of opinion – on that and so many other issues, which is why they’re free to go.

HH: I think we'll move on to the next question, unless you have any closing comment Adolphus?

AF: The states need a breathing space after the failures of the last government, and that is what we should give them.

HH: The next question is for you, Adolphus, from Sir Gerald Hums, Governor of the Royal Institute of Economics. “Given the well-documented benefits of immigration, how and why would you try to reduce internal immigration to the ‘tens of millions’?”

AF: Why? Because it doesn’t work. It places severe strains on housing costs, it places severe strains on transport, it places severe strains on the very fabric of society when people can’t speak the right language, can’t understand what you’re saying, have a completely different mindset. People need their space. How? We have very detailed proposals ready to allow states or devolved local councils to limit the number of residents in their area, and to make allowances for people with specific talents and jobs – a return to pre-Labour limits on free movement. Ever since the floodgates were opened, places have been flooded with people, and it’s a struggle for local residents across the nation to cope with all the movement. It’s simply common sense to step back a bit, and give people a breathing space.

HH: Fiona.

FT: I cannot believe what I’m hearing. Segregation, division, bigoted racism: the right of free movement is sacrosanct to break down the barriers to tolerance that people across the nation face. Immigration has enormous societal and economic benefits, as countless studies have proven: people must be able to move to find work, to become more productive; they must be free to mingle to innovate. We should be celebrating our diversity and putting up barriers is no way to do it.

HT: Victoria! You’ve changed your face!
Textbook liberalism and political cross-dressing: equality and fairness requires liberal freedoms and rights, but preferably with a sensitive government capable of backing it with economic liberalization to ensure that everybody is so rich that whether your neighbour’s face and breakfast is a different colour from yours is unimportant. Adolphus speaks of the strain on housing – we are building houses faster than ever. Adolphus speaks of the strain on transport – we are building railways and pouring money into buses. Adolphus speaks of the strain on society – we are building a tolerant, diverse, creative, innovating society with the fastest GDP growth rate for any comparable large developed nation.

AF: Talk, talk, talk, and you think you’re so clever in your little Alexandrian cosmopolitan bubble, but if you actually met the people on the street you would hear differently. Even the rich are feeling the strain of all the expensive development projects – expensive development projects necessary solely because of the out-of-control, frenetic movement of people, beyond reason or logic. Look, if people really want so much movement, would it hurt to let local communities make up their own minds?

FT: But they do want movement.

HT: The proven way of governing is to support the basic principles by whatever way works: the principle of pragmatic government. Free movement works.

HH: Just to throw a relevant question into the debate, from Arnold Hodginson, “What focus on infrastructure is necessary?”

AF: A great deal more – unless we bring an end to the merry-go-round of people and settle down, in which case everybody can get a tax cut instead.

HT: Actually, the current programmes are easily sufficient and even stimulate economic growth: it’s quite unnecessary to mortgage our future growth for the sake of a few cents in the short term.

HH: Fiona?

FT: Better economic stimulation might be achieved by more efficient use of government spending: the private sector is notoriously inefficient.

HT: The public sector is notoriously inefficient.

FT: You run it.

AF: Why bother with either then and not just solve the root of the problem and give everyone a tax cut?

HT: The purpose of pragmatic government is to do what is most productive, what is best, and where the private sector is better we use them and where the public sector is better we use them; and to make economic growth we use individuals and their imaginations and diversity of experiences, and that means we use immigration, we aren’t unimaginative little-thinking bigots.

AF: For all your grand foresight, you can’t see the wood from the trees: we need a government of common sense.

HT: You may need it – we already have it.

FT: We must take a principled stand on equality, and doing what is good for the people.

HT: Right! And that means not giving in to bigots or wasting government money on short term tax giveaways or public sector inactivity.

HH: Closing statements please. Adolphus.

AF: We need to end the merry-go-round of people to places where they are unwanted, and give communities the space to take charge of their neighbourhoods – that is the common sense that cosmopolitans refuse to listen too.

HH: Fiona.

FT: We need to stand up for the rights of people to equality, and their right to work where they desire.

HH: Henry.

HT: We need to be imaginative enough to let people innovate and effectively and efficiently provide everything we need from infrastructure to art.

HH: The next question is a general one, from an audience member, Andrew Klein, from Kingswood, Syberfloridha.

Andrew Klein: Given the debt catastrophe of the last Labour government, the budget deficits from practically every Liberal government in history, and the uncosted Conservative plan to cut taxes, how do any of you expect the government to remain solvent?

HH: Thank you. Fiona.

FT: Growth. It always works. If you want detailed revenue plans, of course we intend to cut down on tax evasion and raise taxes on the rich. There is a great deal of money that can be raised, and as a statistician and a Keynesian I can assure you that such policies have been seen to work wonders elsewhere to raise living standards and productivity - and they are definitely linked. We need a high-wage, high-skills economy with a government that invests in infrastructure, education, and healthcare, to allow businesses to grow and people to work effectively; with higher minimum wages forcing business to invest in people and their imaginations, ending the satanic mills of robotic drudgery and the classes dividing the states into the haves and have nots.

HH: Henry.

HT: To suppose that there are trillions of dollars lying around waiting to be coshed off a placid, waiting rich and corporations is nonsense. We already have some of the highest tax rates in the world - 50% is far above average. As for rising the minimum wage, I see that Fiona has stolen parts of our manifesto - but has omitted the budget-balancing parts. The Institute of Statistical Policy Analysis says that there is a black hole equivalent to at least a 10% upper rate income tax rise. At some point, businessmen will say 'we are not a cash cow' and will cut off their investment, leaving the government with even less money to work with. In addition - if I may finish - we have already discussed just how inefficient government can be. Removing private providers from Healthcare, Education, and infrastructure in inefficient 'job-creation' and 'resource re-allocation' schemes would be estimated to result in a 5% increase in national debt in the next parliament. And we all know what happens when governments run up too much debt...

HH: Adolphus.

AF: We know how inefficient government can be. Therefore it makes sense to cut taxes. We've earned the right to spend more of our money - our economy is running along well, perhaps not as well as it could or should; and we've earned the right to invest our own money as we like it. That is the way to bring dynamism into the economy, to encourage a fast fiscal expansion: let people keep more of their own money and spend it as they please! Individuals know best what to spend their money on, and even if they don't it's their own business. This robbing government has some of the highest tax rates in the world and they ought to be brought down.

HH: Fiona.

FT: What about fairness? What about the jobs at stake?

AF: How is it fair that people should be taxed into slavery, and their jobs priced at an uneconomically high level, dampening business investment and destroying the jobs you plan to protect?

FT: How is it fair that the poor should be left on the streets, unsupported? How is it fair that people in work should be in poverty?

AF: There's plenty of fat in the government to cut without taking an axe to frontline services! And you can't expect companies to price themselves out of business - how many defaults do you want?

HT: Frontline services are important, moving to a higher minimum wage to raise productivity is important, investing in education is important: doing all of these efficiently and effectively is important and doing it without bankrupting the nation is important! Adolphus your plans have a black hole of a 10% increase in debt over the next parliament unless you start cutting back: what do you plan to cut?

AF: The fat, the useless nanny-state, the big-brother of government.

HT: We do that every parliament and it covers 2% - maximum. Where's the other 8%?

FT: Healthcare? Education? Infrastructure?

AF: I don't accept that figure. Freeing individuals and corporations from the shackles of an over-bearing government will result in faster growth - it will increase private sector investment. You could do it by public sector investment, like the Labour party suggests, but that's less efficient.

FT: It's fairer.

HT: Neither will work. We have an enormous government debt - the debt crisis of the Labour government left our finances in poor shape - and the government cannot and should not jeapordize livelihoods by making ridiculous unfunded givaways or pouring money into inefficient job-creation schemes: we must be pragmatic and moderate between the two, rather than either of these silly extremes.

FT: How is fairness silly?

AF: It's fairer for people to spend their money and invest efficiently and effectively - in the things they want. That's the real pragmatic option.

HT: An 8 to 10% rise in government debt is pragmatic? Loony more like.

AF: It wouldn't be anywhere near as much as that, and in the long term it would boost the economy enormously.

FT: But it is the poor are the ones who need to be invested in, to raise their living standards and so increase their productivity. Both of you would pander to the rich and leave the poor to fend for themselves.

HT: Your minimum wage policy is a carbon copy of ours. Perhaps you're seeing double: it's Adolphus who would pander to the rich and leave the poor to fend for themselves. The last thing the poor need is lower spending or a debt crisis.

AF: They could do with a tax cut and faster growth.

HT: They could do with higher wages and sensible spending and a government that will last forever.

HH: Alright, I think your positions are all perfectly clear. So the final question is also a general one: “What are the things you would most like to do to improve our society?” Two examples please, one completely new. Henry.

HT: Innovate, for both examples. First example: the science budget. I am proud of our science scene. We utterly outclass most of the rest of the world. Even us politicians can hold a reasonably detailed debate on say encouraging innovation in 2d nanomaterials, with experts in all parties. In the international rankings among neighbouring and near-neighbouring regions, I believe we are second only to Knootoss in the strength of our science scene, and Ausitoria is frankly far nicer to live in: we take the evenings and weekends off and find the time to look after the trees and keep the air clean.
Second example: where should we go? It’s not in the manifesto… but I want to see a permanent colony established on another planet. If nothing else, to inspire.

HH: Adolphus.

AF: Back on earth… I would like to see us create a society of societies, on a grander scale, interacting as they see fit; communities free to act as they like. And that would be new.

HH: Fiona, then?

FT: I would like to see a fair minimum wage, as promised in our manifesto, ending the bizarre twiddle factors used to justify this stab against equality. As for something new, I would like to see a renewed focus on renewable energies on the international scene, an attempt to bring together the nations of the world to encourage the dissemination of science between peoples.

AF: Henry, did you just say the first thing that popped into your head? Typical it should be nothing earth-bound.

HT: Typical you should think on such a tiny scale of reference. The world outside your own experience doesn't exist. We’re already planning a manned mission, we might as well try to do the job properly. What about inspiration and imagination? Words not in your vocabulary.

AF: Setting people free is how to increase inspiration and imagination, not overbearing them with rules and regulations and a big insensitive government that squashes them.

HT: You want to close borders - easiest way to stop innovation. You want to run up an enormous debt - easiest way to stop innovation. You want to let people discriminate - easiest way to stop innovation. What about diversity?

AF: What about it?

HT: That is how to imagine more. As for renewable energies, we were the early adopters on that, as for the minimum wage, 'fair' is code for 'bankrupting' and it is not fair to have a government betting everything on inefficient public spending or the charity of the rich.

FT: And how money are you going to divert to this ridiculous space project in the name of fairness and good budgeting?

HT: Not very much - and I'll tell you why: because we're a pragmatic government that uses the private sector when it is most efficient and the public sector when it is most efficient: we do what works best and our government works best.

AF: Back on earth, you accuse us of planning to run deficits - yet you propose to do the same!

HT: We're not ideologically driven, except to do things properly; whereas you wish to waste money on the rich and you wish to waste money on the inefficient. We spend money on imagination and innovation, spending money pragmatically to pragmatic ends.

FT: It is not a waste to spend money on the poor and needy: there is an established link between raising living standards and the safety net and allowing people to function more productively.

AF: It is not a waste to let people spend more of their own money and do what they want - and even if it is for some people, it is none of your business. Government spending is completely out of control.

HT: No it isn't and you know it and the markets know it. It would only be out of control with another Labour government.

FT: No it wouldn't, it simply needs to be better allocated and funded more fairly.

HT: Funded by job-destroying taxes and minimum wages spent on more inefficient job creation schemes?

AF: Governments are inefficient.

HT: Governments are sometimes inefficient.

FT: Governments are fair.

HT: This government knows when it is efficient and doesn't do the inefficient, radical extreme stuff.

AF: How about letting people spend their own money and do what they want?

FT: How about being fair?

AF: Precisely.

FT: To everybody, not just the rich.

HT: Moderatism and pragmatism.

HH: Final statements please... um. Henry Taylor.

HT: We need a moderate government, one that is efficient and effective. Government is a complicated business but it is only the Liberals who can be trusted to stand up to it and see the bigger picture. This is an important election hanging in the balance: vote for a government that works, not for ineffective separatists or inefficient big government. The important thing is to enable people to innovate and imagine ways to their higher living standards, and nothing succeeds like success.

HH: Adolphus Fitzamber.

AF: We need a government that is sensitive to individuals and to communities, one that gives people the freedom to do as they like and spend as they like to get the economy moving ever faster. We do not need an overbearing government offered by either of the other parties: we need a federalist government that steps back and let people live their lives as they wish to.

HH: Fiona Thomason.

FT: Thank you. We need a government that is not only sensitive to individuals and to communities, but that is fair to them, giving them the route to happiness shared between all peoples. We do not need a stultifying government or anarchic non-government that cynically sees people in terms of resources: we need a social government that understand what people want and gives it to them.

HH: Thank you all. Goodnight.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

---

Article from the New Alexandrian Courante online version; 18th December, 2015, Assorted Ausitorian Standard Time
Subsidiary of the ABC

---

Currently trending on #ElectionDebate:
How much will the IFC election poll help the government?
Is it really fair to call a policy fair: doesn't fairness mean different things to different people?
Dress sense: How much does how you look matter?
Is the media scaremongering? Would there really be chaos?

'There is no sane alternative to a liberal government'
Warnings of 'chaos' abound as sudden shift in polls suggest no side will win the elections

The election campaign has become explosively intense and fractious, with the Liberals mounting a major attack labeling their opponents extremists and radicals, rejecting coalition red lines from both the left and right with what has been widely described as 'dictatorial arrogance'. With the polls continuing to narrow, it seems that despite Bvordxa's independence, the Liberals are set to loose their majority to a balanced hung parliament, and shall be forced to compromise with either of the alternatives.

The question of removing the Liberals from office is a tricky one, as both alternatives have been at pains to point out, since Henry Taylor has refused to reject the almost unprecedented idea that he need not stand down as Prime Minister if he loses a vote of no confidence on the basis that in practice only the Liberals would be capable of a minority government, although he has pledged to hold another election in that situation if coalition talks fail. He has been accused of plotting a stranglehold on power with the support of the civil service and the Whittan Council, with suggestions that there would be 'chaos' and a possible break-down of the constitution. The liberals have been accused of scaremongering.

However neither of the alternatives seems to be likely to be able to enter government, with what the Liberals describe as a vast gulf existing between the parties, and neither of the two oppositions are managing to garner universal appeal. Labour is doing superbly in the underdeveloped parts of the Empire, offering superior infrastructure investment, but opinion polls suggest they have been undercut by the populist Conservatives in the wealthier home realms, which have already been hit hard by lowered tax brackets and reductions in services.

Meanwhile the possibility of an entente between the oppositions is also widely considered to be slim: some Conservatives have suggested this is proof of the need for federalization and looser union if it is impossible to form a functional central government, but both Labour and the Liberals have come together to defend the Commonwealth, leading to allegations that the two parties wish to maintain their stranglehold on power, and the defection of the Blefesc Conservatives from the Liberal coalition to the Conservative camp.

The Supreme Court has yet to comment.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

*
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Guide on How to Vote in Imperial Commonwealth Elections from abroad.
(Please note only citizens from free countries may vote to avoid fraud).

There are a number of options on how to vote.

The simplest is to send a photocopy or scan of you beside your passport, with your vote. Note resolution should be sufficient to read the passport in detail.

The second way is to visit the Imperial Commonwealth within the next month to register your vote.

The third way is to visit an Aestorian embassy or consul within the next month to register your vote.

The fourth way (if you have a large patch of ground spare next to your residence) is to put out a large towel at least 1x1 meters in size, green, red, blue, black, grey, or yellow for the liberals, labour, conservatives, liberation, bvordxans, or greens (respectively) with a white towel of similar size underneath and above; and it will be spotted by a passing Aestorian satellite. Satellite overflight times are available from the watch office: please ensure you pick at least ten times without clouds overhead, as most of the satellites listed are non-existent or actually belong to other nations. Only one vote is permitted per residence.

Please contact your local embassy for a list of other ways to vote.

Please note all personal data collected for voter identification is subject to full privacy protection in accordance with Ausitorian law.