Progressive-Conservative Party Headquarters [NSG Senate]

by **Radiatia** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:03 am

The NSG Senate's Oldest Political Party and the first to have our own thread!

Our Platform | Organisational Structure | Constitution | The Blue Book

This thread is for party members, and prospective party members only.
It is for discussing, debating and defining party policy.

"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down."
- Ronald Reagan

Welcome to the Progressive-Conservative Party!

The Progressive-Conservative Party is currently the oldest active political party in the NSG Senate, targeting moderates and centrists in particular. It is the party of pragmatism and rationalism, with the PCP standing for governance by consensus and common sense, rather than by idealism and division.

The party is conservative in the sense that we reject change for the sake of change but progressive in the sense that we actively seek out new ways of bettering humanity and the citizens of NS.

We believe in a government that empowers the individual, but one which also takes strong measures to ensure the security of its citizens. We believe in creating equality of opportunity, but accept that inequality is natural in a meritocratic society. We believe that society does have an obligation to the poor and needy, but we also believe that the way to help those at the bottom is not by making the rich poor.

So whether you're a third way centrist of the Bill Clinton/Tony Blair variety or a Progressive-Conservative of the Theodore Roosevelt/Benjamin Disraeli type, then we are the party for you!

Our motto is
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it - But if it is broke then do fix it!"

Party News

The Policing and Law Enforcement Act is a Three-Line Whip in favour!
The Presidential vote is to be a Two-line Whip in support of Aeken

Party Members

Please let me know if you name should be here, but isn't; or if your name shouldn't be here but is:

by **Radiatia** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:04 am

Our Policies

The following is a suggested list of Progressive-Conservative Party Policies on certain issues, in order to give a general understanding of what the party stands for.

The policy list is neither concrete nor complete and members are both welcome, and advised, to debate and discuss party policy and add their own suggestions.

Also I wrote this at 2am and rushed it

Law and Order

The Progressive-Conservative Party believes that the main role of the state is to provide security for its citizens, in order to create a safe place for all people to live.

Therefore we support:

A well funded, and armed police force
A justice system based on deterrence, not rehabilitation, with sensible sentences that fit the crime
Public CCTV and in certain circumstances wiretapping, to prevent crime and terrorism
Anti-hate laws and anti-radical laws - sometimes free speech must have some limitations for the sake of security

National Security

The Progressive-Conservative Party supports a well-equipped military force and the nuclear deterrent if and where possible.

Ideally the military ought to deter foreign aggression for the sake of national security, however we accept that there are times when foreign intervention is necessary.

The Progressive-Conservative Party, although supporting a well-armed military, stands wary of the military-industrial complex and the lobbying power of such groups.

Social Issues

The Progressive-Conservative Party believes that:

There should be a separation between church and state, and that one should not seek to infringe upon the other
Debates such as LGBT rights and Abortion distract from the real issues at hand - crime, defence and the economy
There is nothing 'positive' about 'positive discrimination', and strongly opposes Affirmative Action
All people are born equal, and human rights should be upheld. However there is little reason to change the status quo at present

The Economy

The Progressive-Conservative Party believes that a market economy is the only way to create wealth, sustainable jobs, innovation and economic growth, and is also the best way to preserve the right of an individual to an individually directed lifestyle.

The party accepts that privatising public services is not always the most efficient course of action, but in the private sector actively seeks to partner with businesses and job creators and to create the best conditions for investors and business owners, as well as taking an active stand in promoting entrepreneurs.

The party believes that while free trade is an excellent long-term goal that gives the benefits of more markets for exporters, and while an open market can help bring new jobs to a local area, free trade needs to be treated with caution as it could negatively impact local industries in the short and medium term.

The Progressive-Conservative Party believes that while trade unions are admirable in their goals of securing better working and living conditions, and that people ought to continue to strive for such things, trade unions need to be kept in check to ensure they don't cause inflation to rise, or price their workers out of the market, or shut down key sectors of the economy for unrealistic demands.

The party believes that immigration needs to be restricted only to those who are educated, and coming to fill a gap in the market where there is too much demand, or they should be coming to create jobs.

The Progressive-Conservative Party believes that full employment is something that should be sought.

Social Security

The Progressive-Conservative Party believes that society has an obligation to the poor and needy, and that a social safety net is an important component of being a civilised, first world country.

However we emphasise that it is a net, not a hammock, and that the role of social security is to empower the individual to return to an individually directed lifestyle.

As such the Progressive-Conservative Party supports:

Pensions for veterans and the elderly
Compulsory retraining for the unemployed to get them back into work
Food stamps as opposed to direct transfers of money for the unemployed
State housing to prevent homelessness
Means testing for beneficiaries

Taxation

The Progressive-Conservative Party believes that while taxes are necessary to support public works, having a tax rate too high can have a detrimental effect on the economy.

The Party believes that the top marginal tax rate should not exceed 35% for doing so will negatively impact job creating businesses, and act as a deterrent to those seeking to become wealthier.

The party accepts that a progressive tax system is ultimately the fairest to the poor, provided that tax levels do not progress in such a way as to punish those who work hard.

Education

The Progressive-Conservative Party strongly supports a public education system, as being the main way in which equality of opportunity can be achieved.

No expense should be spared from creating a high quality, public system accessible to all and one which provides to best quality education to all citizens.

The Progressive-Conservative Party opposes religious instruction in public schools.

Healthcare

The Progressive-Conservative Party believes that healthcare coverage should be universal, and that all citizens should at least be covered by a basic healthcare plan.

It also believes the government needs to take an active stance in lowering the cost of healthcare when and where possible.

The party does not seek to destroy the private healthcare system, but merely seeks to ensure that no citizens are denied essential medical treatment, as part of a compassionate, civilised society.

Environment

The Progressive-Conservative Party seeks a clean, green and sustainable future for all people, and seeks to invest in alternative energy sources and promote green technology.

However, we do not believe that people should have to lower their quality of life to preserve the environment, and that we should seek to slowly transition to a green economy lest we cost important jobs in heavy industry, coal or oil.

The environment needs to be protected, but not at the cost of jobs and people's livelihoods.

by **Radiatia** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:04 am

Our Structure

The Progressive-Conservative Party has a hierarchical structure with some democratic elements, and some non-democratic elements in order to create a balance between efficiency and innovation.

The Party has six main types of people within it - the Chairman, the Party Leader, the Senior Whip, the Junior Whip, the Senators and the Members.

The Chairman

The Chairman handles the administrative side of the party; that is overseeing the rest of the party to ensure operations are running smoothly, people are communicating and party objectives are being fulfilled.

The Chairman possesses reserve powers - that it he may veto a policy proposal that violates the party constitution, he may dismiss other high ranking party officials or even ban people from the party.

His consent is also required in appointing party officials, such as the party leader.

The current chairman is Radiatia who is serving a life term in this office. Of course, given his drinking habits and the state of his liver, a "life term" probably won't be all that long...

A new Chairman may be appointed by a unanimous party vote if the sitting chairman dies, is DEAT'ed or simply forgets to login and ceases to exist on Nationstates.

Party Leader

The Party Leader is a very important elected role. The Party Leader handles the day to day running of the party - such as ensuring Progressive-Conservative legislation passes, or in advancing existing or even new party policy.

The Party Leader is elected for an indefinite term, and remains in power until s/he
a) Resigns
b) Is dismissed by the Chairman or
c) Loses confidence of the party (that is; the party votes to replace them with a new leader).

The Party Leader also essentially carries out the role of the Chairman when the Chairman is absent/ too drunk to do his duties

Senior Whip

The Whips are the people whose job is to ensure that members all vote according to party lines. The whips are entrusted with the job of making sure all members are present for the vote, and know what the party's official policy is (which will be directed by the Party Leader and/or the Chairman).

Whips also may vote, along with the party leadership, on whether or not to eject a particular member from the party.

The Senior Whip is appointed directly by the Chairman.

Junior Whip

The Whips are the people whose job is to ensure that members all vote according to party lines. The whips are entrusted with the job of making sure all members are present for the vote, and know what the party's official policy is (which will be directed by the Party Leader and/or the Chairman).

Whips also may vote, along with the party leadership, on whether or not to eject a particular member from the party.

The Junior Whip is appointed by the Party Leader, or sometimes by a vote of the caucus.

The Senators

Senators are the party members who have a recognised seat in the NSG Senate and therefore have voting power. Senators are extremely important in ensuring that the party's policies are ultimately reflected in legislation.

Party Members

Everyone in the Progressive-Conservative Party is a party member, however this group tends to refer to former Senators, or inactive party members or members yet to gain a Senate seat.

Party members are still important in voting on policy.

Voting System

In order to ensure our policies are implemented, it is very important to make sure that the party remains well disciplined and well organised - after all, we have to practice what we preach!

Party policy is derived from two sources - the Party Manifesto, also known as the Policy Platform which is the general guideline on the party's views on broad subjects, and from debating specific legislation within this thread.

In the latter case, the Party Leader may direct policy, with the support of the party members - although in exceptional cases it may be vetoed by the Chairman (but only if it were to breach the party constitution).

Once the Chairman, or Party Leader, has determined the party's views on a piece of legislation, a directive will be issued and the whips will distribute this to party members.

This will instruct people on how they are to vote. There are four types of votes used by this party:

Conscience Vote

If the party decides something is a conscience vote, then members may vote any way they desire on a piece of legislation with no consequences.

Conscience votes are usually used on issues that are based on people's personal beliefs such as LGBT rights and Abortion legislation.

Single-line Whip

Single-line whips are where the party has a general policy on the subject, but understands not all members will agree. It is best to be treated as "we advise you to vote this way" rather than "you have to vote this way".

Examples of single-line whips likely to be used by the Progressive-Conservative Party would be on legislation involving gun control or the death penalty.

Two-line Whip

Two-line whips mean that all party members must vote the same way. If they strongly do not agree to a policy, they may contact the whip and ask to abstain from the vote, however they may not vote against party lines (i.e. vote for a bill the party opposes, or vote against a bill the party supports).

Breaking a two-line whip will usually result in a warning on the first infraction, and then disciplinary action is such unauthorised rebellion continues.

Three-line Whip

A Three-line whip means all members must vote the same way, no excuses. Usually three-line whips are employed on party legislation, and are considered to be essential to implementing party policy.

Breaking a three-line whip will most likely result in expulsion from the party and as such are to be treated very seriously.

by **Radiatia** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:04 am

Our Constitution

NAME
1. The Party shall be known as "The Progressive-Conservative Party"

ORGANISATIONAL PURPOSE
2. The Progressive-Conservative Party is a grouping of Nationstates players with similar political views and values who work together to maximise the influence of Progressive-Conservative Party values and objectives in the NSG Senate.

PRINCIPLES

3. a) The Progressive-Conservative Party seeks a safe and prosperous world that creates opportunities for all people to reach their personal goals and dreams.

b) The Progressive-Conservative party seeks to build a society based on the following values:

Loyalty to Max Barry as the sovereign head of Nationstates, and the creator of all things NS and to the NS moderators as the rightful representatives and enforcers of His will.
Loyalty to democratic principles, including universal suffrage and regular and free elections
National, personal and social security
Equal citizenship and equal opportunity
Individual freedom and choice
Personal responsibility and human rights
Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement
A separation of church and state with the rights to freedom of religion; and freedom from religion

OBJECTIVES

4. The objectives of the Progressive-Conservative Party are based on the above principles. In order to fulfil our organisational purpose, the Progressive-Conservative Party shall focus its activities on the following key objectives:

a) To maximise membership of the Progressive-Conservative Party amongst all players with similar views.

b) To elect and support competent Senators for the purpose of giving effect to party policy and principles.

c) To maximise the value of party membership by ensuring that members, wherever possible, have the opportunity to participate in policy generation, and other party activities.

MEMBERSHIP

5. a) Membership shall be open to any Senator or player who expresses his or her desire to join the party.

b) All members shall have equal rights, but are bound to support the party rules and party policy as directed by the Chairman, Party Leadership and Whips.

c) Members do not require confirmation from the Chairman or any other party member in order to join and all are eligible provided that they are not already a member of an existing political party

d) If a member is a member of another party, s/he was renounce and resign his/her former membership

e) All are eligible to join unless specifically barred from joining by the Chairman, the Party whips or a majority of the existing party caucus

f) Membership may be cancelled for rule-breaking, including breaking party rules or party policy, and such decisions shall rest with a board which shall consist of the Chairman, the Whips and any other officially designated party leader.

STRUCTURE

6. a) There shall be a Chairman as head of the administrative wing of the party. The Chairman shall not be an elected position, but one held for life.

b) There shall be a Party Leader, who shall be elected by party members for as long as said member can retain the confidence and support of the party. The Party Leader shall be designated duties of a similar nature to the Chairman.

c) There shall be one Senior Whip and one Junior Whip, who shall have duties in ensuring that party members vote along officially designated party lines if and when applicable. Both whips shall have power to enforce party discipline, and may cast proxy votes for absent members who give explicit permission for a proxy vote to be cast on their behalf.

d) The Junior Whip shall be chosen either by members, or by the Party Leader, however the consent of the Chairman is required. The Senior Whip shall be appointed at the pleasure of the Chairman.

POLICY GENERATION

7. a) Policies shall be created by the members, through consensus or majority vote, and with the consent of the Chairman

b) The manifesto and party platform, once agreed to, shall remain inviolable - however whips, and other party leadership shall have the power to determine which policies are enforced and most strictly.

c) The exception to the aforementioned rule shall be for the party leader - who may propose amendments to party policy subject to approval from the caucus

d) All members may propose policy, legislation or an official party line towards a piece of legislation. Such policy shall be decided by a vote, and/or with approval from the Chairman or Party Leader

VOTING

8. a) Progressive-Conservative Senators must ensure that they are voting along party lines, with such decisions lying with the Party Leader and distributed by the whips.

b) There shall be four types of whip for each legislation:

Conscience Vote - Members may vote according to their own conscience and dictates
Single-line Whip - Indicates what the party's policy is on a particular piece of legislation but is not binding - a member may still ultimately vote how s/he wishes without repercussions
Two-line Whip - All members must vote the same way, however members may abstain with approval from the whip if they strongly object to the party policy
Three-line Whip - All party members are required to vote the same way for this legislation, with strict punishments for anyone voting against party lines, including expulsion from the party

by **Radiatia** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:05 am

Placeholder

by **Wolfmanne** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:40 am

Well, I've decided to write a bit on the subject of progressive conservatism. This is more of a short essay and (may I stress this) an ~~unofficial publication, but Chairman-approved~~ official publication of the Progressive-Conservative Party (it got added to the OP

).lf. This also doesn't state the official policy of the Progressive-Conservative Party - it's more about the actual ideology itself. However, members of the Progressive-Conservative Party may use it as a reference guide and they can feel free to link to this if anyone quotes something along the lines of 'lulz, progressive conservatism, more like boiled ice cream' or 'doesn't progressivism and conservatism contradict each other?'. I'd also like to add a disclaimer: everyone else could of have written this better than me. Trust me. Without further ado, I hereby present to NationStates:

The Blue Book: Reclaiming Society

By Wolfmanne
Not in any way shape and form a Progressive-Conservative rip-off of the Liberal 'The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism'.

Progressive Conservatism are two very, interesting words. In broad, simple, catch-all laymen terms, both words are essentially opposites of each other. Progressivism is the support for social, political and economic 'reform', whereas Conservatism is the support for social, political and economic 'stability'. This pretty much makes it impossible for the two to unite and bring us the fusion of progressive conservatism, because both statements contradict each other. However, modern day politics can't be separated by simple left-and-right. We have Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Liberals, Third Way adherents, Radical Centrists, Neoconservatives, Thatcherites, Traditionalists and Libertarians in the mix nowadays, along with a number of factions I probably haven't accounted for. With all these beliefs, it is essentially impossible for there to be polar opposites. There is always some sort of weird factor in simple left-and-right. A Thatcherite for example would support the need for economic liberalism. A Libertarian would most likely agree on the economic liberalism aspect of Thatcherism but a Libertarian would oppose the foreign policy beliefs of Thatcherism, which were reflected in the Falklands War. A Libertarian probably wouldn't have resorted to such aggressive means of response, however it is easy to list Libertarianism and Thatcherism under the same umbrella of right-wing.

So what is progressive conservatism? Progressive conservatism has a long history behind it. In 1947, British conservative Rab Butler MP published the Industrial Charter, a pamphlet released by the Conservative Party that advocated the views of economic liberalism and opposed protectionism, however stressed the promise of fairness in society and that the Conservative Party would defend labour rights. This can be considered the beginning of modern day progressive conservatism. Go further back and you meet Benjamin Disraeli, a politician from the 1830s-1881 and William Gladstone's main opposition, whom Benjamin referred to as 'God's Only Mistake', is another example of a progressive conservative. Benjamin Disraeli was isolated from the rest of the Conservative Party on the issue of the Corn Laws. Conservatives lead by Sir Robert Peel formed an alliance with the Whigs (classical liberals) and the Radicals (universal suffragettes - except for women of course) to repeal the Corn Laws, a mercantile act which restricted foreign imports of corn. Disraeli then propelled the Conservative Party to a new era of progressivism. He stood for traditional Conservative values, which at the time was mostly protectionism but as evidenced in his second term as Prime Minister, he showed his Progressive side by introducing laws that would improve the quality of life in slums (the Artisans' and Labourers' Dwelling Act), by ordering all houses to be connected to the sewage system and have clean running water (Public Health Act), compulsory education for children up to 10, increased regulation of all industries and the abolition of child labour for up to 10 years old (all three covered by the Factory Act). More importantly, the Reform Act 1867 (actually introduced before Disraeli had even served a term as Prime Minister) expanded the vote by 88%, a considerable rise. Many Conservative resigned because of Disraeli's radicalism, such as Lord Cranborne. One Liberal-Labour commentator (Alexander Macdonald MP) told his constituents that 'the Conservatives have done for the working class of Britain in 5 years then the Liberals in 50'. In my eyes, Benjamin Disraeli is the father of progressive conservatism, although many modern day progressive conservatives would disagree with his beliefs, especially on protectionism.

A more modern day example would be Boris Johnson. Boris Johnson, Mayor of London. He was recently quoted as saying this:

I'm a one-nation Tory [one-nation conservative is another name for progressive conservative, Tory is just a nickname for UK conservatives]. There is a duty on the part of the rich to the poor and to the needy, but you are not going to help people express that duty and satisfy it if you punish them fiscally so viciously that they leave this city and this country. I want London to be a competitive, dynamic place to come to work.

I have to say I agree with him. Whilst Boris has been supportive of Conservatism in London, most notably making the 2012 London Olympics the most privatised out of all the Olympics there have been, with an unaccountable number of sponsors, Boris has also proven to be very progressive. When he abolished the Londoner newspaper, which Johnson quoted as being 'Pyongyang propaganda', he decided to spend a large proportion of the savings on... replanting trees? Yes, that's right, Conservatives saving the environment (slight sarcasm here, of course we damn well care about the environment). Johnson has also expanded the coverage of the Oyster Card scheme, which I must say is a great idea. It was introduced in 2003. All it allowed us to buy a permanent ticket and if us Londoners needed to use transport, we just had to touch this permanent ticket on this yellow disc thingy (Wikipedia can probably explain it better than me. It might sound so simple but really us Londoners love the Oyster Card. He introduced the Barclays Cycle Hire, or the 'Boris Bikes', which essentially allowed Londoners to hire bikes in the city and he has improved funding for public transport. Boris also supports the legalisation of medical marijuana.

David Cameron is another example of a progressive conservative. Aside from launching thenthe Progressive Conservative Project, Cameron in government has recognised the need to balance Progressivism and Conservatism, especially in a time where austerity cuts are required. For example, the Health and Social Care Act 2012, in a nutshell, advocated more independence to GPs and it allowed the private sector to have more of a role in the NHS, but Cameron still recognised the need for universal health care in some form, something unthinkable by most Conservatives in America, who are pretty much all voicing a unanimous 'no' to 'Obamacare'. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 would replace the means-tested benefits with a single Universal Credit, which saves money but allows for a continuance of welfare benefits (the other reason for this was also to reduce the amount of people in a situation in that if they took work, they would actually be earning less than if they stayed on benefits). Harold Macmillan, a Conservative Prime Minister in the in the late 50s and the early 70s, shall be my final case study, although a short one so that I don't bore you to tears. His economic measures prioritised a path to full employment and he dramatically increased the rates of employment. However, he protected private businesses and opposed the Labour Party's plan to nationalize several industries.

So what is progressive conservatism? Progressive conservatism is the recognition that we need to make a stand for all in society, not just for a small group of people. As Boris Johnson said, we must help the poor and needy, but not so that the rich disappears and our economy doesn't progress. We seek to balance the two issues. Universal health care and a welfare state is a pillar of progressive conservatism, along with privatisation and the free market, can co-exist along side each other. Law and order and defense is also key to progressive conservatives, who support a tough, hard stance on both. On social issues, progressive conservatives have wide, varying view. In the past, Boris Johnson has opposed LGBT rights and whilst he has revised this stance, there are many who still have social conservative views. As a result, progressive conservatives do not view these issues as a priority in comparison to other issues. To summarise, progressive conservatism seeks to represent all in society and not just a few people. The problems with Progressivism alone is that it would affect the national economy and would push us into a series of economic crises. However, Conservatism alone would mean that not everyone in society is fairly protected by the state, which has the power to do so. A balance between both of them is the way forward and it was shown by Benjamin Disraeli, Rab Butler, Harold MacMillan, Boris Johnson and David Cameron (the latter two are still showing it to this day). I only hope that more people can realise that both can co-exist along side each other.

An excellent thread for the PCP. This definitely represents what progressive conservatism is all about. I disagree with this though: The Progressive-Conservative Party opposes religious instruction in public schools. Does this mean that all schools must be secular, period? I believe that it's up to parental choice on whether send their child to a secular or religious school and I think that both should exist along side each other.

by **Nui-ta** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:59 am

Wolfmanne wrote:An excellent thread. This definitely represents what Progressive Conservatism is all about. I disagree with this though: The Progressive-Conservative Party opposes religious instruction in public schools. Does this mean that all schools must be secular, period? I believe that it's up to parental choice on whether send their child to a secular or religious school and I think that both should exist along side each other.

Public schools --- ones run by the state. Not religious schools funded by a church/temple. Those can be religious as they please.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to mention. PS...I can haz PCP member's ship?

by **Subramani** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:24 am

Nui-ta wrote:
Wolfmanne wrote:An excellent thread. This definitely represents what Progressive Conservatism is all about. I disagree with this though: The Progressive-Conservative Party opposes religious instruction in public schools. Does this mean that all schools must be secular, period? I believe that it's up to parental choice on whether send their child to a secular or religious school and I think that both should exist along side each other.

Public schools --- ones run by the state. Not religious schools funded by a church/temple. Those can be religious as they please.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to mention. PS...I can haz PCP member's ship?

I also believe we should have Voucher system to let parents send children to Private schools if they wish, as long as the said private schools agree to teach based on the public school curriculum.

by **Radiatia** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:28 am

Nui-ta wrote:
Wolfmanne wrote:An excellent thread. This definitely represents what Progressive Conservatism is all about. I disagree with this though: The Progressive-Conservative Party opposes religious instruction in public schools. Does this mean that all schools must be secular, period? I believe that it's up to parental choice on whether send their child to a secular or religious school and I think that both should exist along side each other.

Public schools --- ones run by the state. Not religious schools funded by a church/temple. Those can be religious as they please.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to mention. PS...I can haz PCP member's ship?

What she said. Even though personally I would want religious schools to have an eye kept on them... I don't trust them at all.

Subramani wrote:
Nui-ta wrote:
Public schools --- ones run by the state. Not religious schools funded by a church/temple. Those can be religious as they please.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to mention. PS...I can haz PCP member's ship?

I also believe we should have Voucher system to let parents send children to Private schools if they wish, as long as the said private schools agree to teach based on the public school curriculum.

I am foaming-at-the-mouth opposed to a voucher system, so I'm afraid I couldn't go for this. The voucher system works on the myth that all private schools are better. But the truth it they are better only in terms of a) resources and b) the fact that, unlike public schools, they have the power to kick out kids from families they don't like, thus making their results look better than they are.

by **Radiatia** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:31 am

Actually thinking about it - I don't like the notion that "parents should choose what schools their children go to".

What the hell would parents know?

I'd actually rather have the state choose, at least the state has experts and people with qualifications, rather than just some idiots who couldn't wear a condom right.

Not policy... just my opinion

by **Subramani** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:34 am

Radiatia wrote:
Nui-ta wrote:
Public schools --- ones run by the state. Not religious schools funded by a church/temple. Those can be religious as they please.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to mention. PS...I can haz PCP member's ship?

What she said. Even though personally I would want religious schools to have an eye kept on them... I don't trust them at all.

Subramani wrote:
I also believe we should have Voucher system to let parents send children to Private schools if they wish, as long as the said private schools agree to teach based on the public school curriculum.

I am foaming-at-the-mouth opposed to a voucher system, so I'm afraid I couldn't go for this. The voucher system works on the myth that all private schools are better. But the truth it they are better only in terms of a) resources and b) the fact that, unlike public schools, they have the power to kick out kids from families they don't like, thus making their results look better than they are.

Okay, I am not that big fan of voucher system either, i just thought this suggestion would serve as a compromise for the right wingers to support the bill, if our party decides to bring about Education Bill in the future in Senate.

by **Radiatia** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:38 am

Subramani wrote:
Radiatia wrote:
What she said. Even though personally I would want religious schools to have an eye kept on them... I don't trust them at all.

I am foaming-at-the-mouth opposed to a voucher system, so I'm afraid I couldn't go for this. The voucher system works on the myth that all private schools are better. But the truth it they are better only in terms of a) resources and b) the fact that, unlike public schools, they have the power to kick out kids from families they don't like, thus making their results look better than they are.

Okay, I am not that big fan of voucher system either, i just thought this suggestion would serve as a compromise for the right wingers to support the bill, if our party decides to bring about Education Bill in the future in Senate.

Just be yourself man. The voucher system is more of an example of economic liberalism anyway, which isn't really something for us. It's a bit too extreme for us.

by **Wolfmanne** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:42 am

Radiatia wrote:
Nui-ta wrote:
Public schools --- ones run by the state. Not religious schools funded by a church/temple. Those can be religious as they please.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to mention. PS...I can haz PCP member's ship?

What she said. Even though personally I would want religious schools to have an eye kept on them... I don't trust them at all.

Subramani wrote:
I also believe we should have Voucher system to let parents send children to Private schools if they wish, as long as the said private schools agree to teach based on the public school curriculum.

I am foaming-at-the-mouth opposed to a voucher system, so I'm afraid I couldn't go for this. The voucher system works on the myth that all private schools are better. But the truth it they are better only in terms of a) resources and b) the fact that, unlike public schools, they have the power to kick out kids from families they don't like, thus making their results look better than they are.

What I refer to is that religious schools should also be funded by the government. If we only have religious schools funded by individual churches and temples, then there is the likelihood that they will be inaccessible to religious families. We could potentially have a free school/academy system, in which they are out of the state system and are independent, but they are funded by the state.

by **Subramani** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:51 am

Wolfmanne wrote:
Radiatia wrote:
What she said. Even though personally I would want religious schools to have an eye kept on them... I don't trust them at all.

I am foaming-at-the-mouth opposed to a voucher system, so I'm afraid I couldn't go for this. The voucher system works on the myth that all private schools are better. But the truth it they are better only in terms of a) resources and b) the fact that, unlike public schools, they have the power to kick out kids from families they don't like, thus making their results look better than they are.

What I refer to is that religious schools should also be funded by the government. If we only have religious schools funded by individual churches and temples, then there is the likelihood that they will be inaccessible to religious families. We could potentially have a free school/academy system, in which they are out of the state system and are independent, but they are funded by the state.

Religious Education is not an absolute Necessity but a luxury. So no need for Government to fund them.

by **Wolfmanne** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:58 am

Subramani wrote:
Wolfmanne wrote:What I refer to is that religious schools should also be funded by the government. If we only have religious schools funded by individual churches and temples, then there is the likelihood that they will be inaccessible to religious families. We could potentially have a free school/academy system, in which they are out of the state system and are independent, but they are funded by the state.

Religious Education is not an absolute Necessity but a luxury. So no need for Government to fund them.

Freedom of Religion is a tenet to our beliefs and that extends to the choice of school. Each and every parent should have a right to choose to send their child to a religious school based on their own religion. By restricting it to a top few independent schools only accessible to wealthier families, we are not standing for everyone in society. Make it compulsory for them to to be taught standardised sex education that would be taught in secular schools and ban the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design in Science.

by **Subramani** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:40 am

Wolfmanne wrote:
Subramani wrote:
Religious Education is not an absolute Necessity but a luxury. So no need for Government to fund them.

Freedom of Religion is a tenet to our beliefs and that extends to the choice of school. Each and every parent should have a right to choose to send their child to a religious school based on their own religion. By restricting it to a top few independent schools only accessible to wealthier families, we are not standing for everyone in society. Make it compulsory for them to to be taught standardised sex education that would be taught in secular schools and ban the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design in Science.

I believe Freedom of Religion should only mean public should be allowed to practice any religion they wish without interference from Govt. This should not mean that Govt should actively fund them to follow the religion like help them attend religious school. If we start doing that, then what if the basic tenant of a specific religion is to make specific pilgrimage every year? Should Govt fund them too, since the poor people in that religion would not be able to follow that religious practice?

by **Subramani** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:08 am

In the Marriage Bill, currently being voted in the Senate, so far 5 Progressive Conservative Senators have voted 'For' and 2 senators have voted 'Against'

With no directive from the party whips, I assume this is a conscious vote, since it relates to social issue, which is not the main platform of our party.

by **Othelos** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:26 am

I'm kind of thinking switching to this party.

My RL views are much more in line with this party's than the LFP's. I understand that there are good and bad sides to everything, and being a hard line libertarian is a bit extreme for me.

Thoughts?

by **Wolfmanne** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:32 am

Othelos wrote:(tag)

The Libertarians wish to make a request? Electoral alliance I wonder? Hmm...

by **Othelos** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:34 am

Wolfmanne wrote:
Othelos wrote:(tag)

The Libertarians wish to make a request? Electoral alliance I wonder? Hmm...

Read again

by **Wolfmanne** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:01 pm

Othelos wrote:
Wolfmanne wrote:The Libertarians wish to make a request? Electoral alliance I wonder? Hmm...

Read again

Ah, ok. Well, progressive conservatism is a whole lot less extreme then libertarianism generally. The Progressive-Conservative Party give a lot of free reign on social views as we do not see it as a priority, but do note that there are a number of members who are against gay marriage, abortion etc (I personally support gay marriage and I have no opinion on abortion), so you could be a civil libertarian or a social conservative and you'd still be welcome. We prioritise obtaining full employment over monetarist policies and we support a social security net which puts people back into work and not on benefits for the rest of their life. Our law and order politics advocates the usage of CCTV and apparently 'some wiretapping', along with some laws to ensure that free speech doesn't go too far, an armed police force and a justice system based on deterrence. So we differ from libertarianism significantly, but if you agree with most of that, then I think you'd get along with the rest of the party fine.

by **Othelos** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:05 pm

Wolfmanne wrote:
Othelos wrote:Read again

Ah, ok. Well, progressive conservatism is a whole lot less extreme then libertarianism generally. The Progressive-Conservative Party give a lot of free reign on social views as we do not see it as a priority, but do note that there are a number of members who are against gay marriage, abortion etc (I personally support gay marriage and I have no opinion on abortion), so you could be a civil libertarian or a social conservative and you'd still be welcome. We prioritise obtaining full employment over monetarist policies and we support a social security net which puts people back into work and not on benefits for the rest of their life. Our law and order politics advocates the usage of CCTV and apparently 'some wiretapping', along with some laws to ensure that free speech doesn't go too far, an armed police force and a justice system based on deterrence. So we differ from libertarianism significantly, but if you agree with most of that, then I think you'd get along with the rest of the party fine.

Alright, thanks for the explanation. I'll have to think about it.

by **Wolfmanne** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:48 pm

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=236940&start=50

The Communists are going with some crazy tax proposals (for instance, 85% tax rate on the top bracket). I think that we should discuss our own taxation bill and introduce it before the Commies. We should try to cooperate with all other parties other than the Red-Greens, the Communists and Classical Monarchists for a rate that's acceptable for all parties.

by **Bolaly** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:54 pm

Just noticed this

I've been going through pages in the NSG Senate discussion thread. Good to have this thread though and good job everyone!

by **Othelos** » Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:02 pm

self-delete.

Progressive-Conservative Party Headquarters [NSG Senate]

Progressive-Conservative Party Headquarters [NSG Senate]

Who is online