A Brighter Future: UK Political RP - OOC

[Pacific Haven]

snip[/box]

Great app on the whole- a left-wing candidate (by New Labour standards) in 2010 will definitely make for some interesting politics.

I don't think we're going to do a 2009 leadership election, simple reason being there doesn't seem to be enough candidates for a leadership *and* a general election. You can safely remove that part; we'll stick to 2010. A brief addition on the immediate response to the recession would be fine, but since we have a few months for some legislation, if you stick to what you have right now I see no problem with it.

Accepted!

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

snip[/box]

Great app on the whole- a left-wing candidate (by New Labour standards) in 2010 will definitely make for some interesting politics.

I don't think we're going to do a 2009 leadership election, simple reason being there doesn't seem to be enough candidates for a leadership *and* a general election. You can safely remove that part; we'll stick to 2010. A brief addition on the immediate response to the recession would be fine, but since we have a few months for some legislation, if you stick to what you have right now I see no problem with it.

Accepted!

Apart from what's mentioned, specifically the National Wealth Fund, laws can be assumed to be basically the same as our timelime.

[Regnum Britannia]

Still a WIP:

UK Political RP Applications
Name: Damian Spencer
Appearance:

Date of Birth (Age): 22nd of June 1952
Current positions (if MP, add constituency): Member of Parliament for Lancaster and Wyre (2005-); Chair of the Conservative Party (2009-)
Past positions: Shadow Minister of State for the City (2007); Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury (2007-2009)
Political party: Conservative

Strengths:
Safe Pair of Hands: Spencer is widely seen as a competent administrator, which is why he was made Chairman of the Conservative Party in preparation for the next election. He can efficiently steer the ship of the Tories through any storm, and has a good understanding of administration through his employment in financial services and the civil service.

One-Nation Tory: As a one-nation conservative, Spencer fits in with other Tory MPs like not-Cameron and not-Osborne, who are young, progressive and seen as rising stars in the party. Spencer hopes to join them as well as like-minded individuals.

Weaknesses:
Damian who? Despite his ambitions to reach the top of the party, Spencer is relatively unknown outside of Westminster itself, largely working in the background despite his high-profile jobs. He will need to make more of a connection with the public in the election.

Out of touch: Spencer was educated privately, went to Oxford and is generally seen as an upper-middle-class Tory, which doesn't sit well in the economic crisis the country finds itself in.

Biography:
Spencer was born in Farnborough, Kent, as the only child of John Spencer, a local schoolteacher and secretary of the Royal Geographic Society; and Sophia Spencer (née Hughes), a nurse and later a charity volunteer. His childhood was loving and comfortable, their family having a small cottage in Kent, and he was educated privately at Millfield. After leaving school, he studied geography at Oxford, but later switched to modern history, graduating with a 2:1 degree in 1973.

Between 1976 and 1983, he worked at the Bank of England, and from 1985 to 1997, at the Association for Payment Clearing Services (APACS), as a political consultant. He served as Head of the European Affairs Unit from 1989 to 1993, and eventually rose to become Head of International Affairs by 1997. In that role he would learn new techniques in running a large organisation, as well as some geopolitical knowledge and how financial services were handled in Paris, New York and Tokyo.

In 1998, he joined CCHQ, specialising in trade and financial services. In the aftermath of the disastrous 1997 election, the party was in trouble and had no real sense of direction. In 2001, the party was divided over whether to join the Eurozone, and Spencer urged them to support a referendum. He personally supported joining the Euro, but was afraid that the public wouldn't back them if they argued for joining. In the end, the party chose to "Save the Pound".

Spencer would eventually become Head of Political Affairs at CCHQ, where he reformed the party's organisation and generally increased its appeal and range through the slimming down of the office while using new, modern, New Labour campaign techniques. Seen as a rising star in the party, in the 2005 election he was selected for the safe seat of Lancaster and Wyre. He was elected with a comfortable majority.

His first few years were rather uneventful. His maiden speech was on a debate on the Eurozone, and although he focused on his constituency, he also subtly hinted that he supported joining the Euro. He also contributed to debates on the economy, and made himself known as an experienced debater on financial affairs. As such, within a few years he was appointed to be Shadow Minister for the City, responsible for the City of London and the large financial sector. He advocated for a second round of Thatcherite reforms, including increased deregulation; but he left the role, luckily, before the Great Recession.

As Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Spencer opposed the National Wealth Fund and quantitative easing in general, on the grounds that it was risky, dangerous and would deter investment by foreign companies. He also opposed the cutbacks by the government, especially on defence and education, and urged the government to "readjust its priorities to better serve the public".

In 2009, in the preparations for the general election, Spencer was moved to become Chair of the Conservative Party, which he has held ever since. His main task of making the party ready for the election has gone smoothly, and within Westminster he is known for his good administrative skills and cool manner of handling matters.

Political positions: As a one-nation conservative, Spencer supports social programs to support the working classes, as well as keeping traditional institutions and structures. He supports a bailout to the British people, the triple-lock pension scheme, and increasing spending on education, as well as supporting the underdeveloped North of England. He also supports same-sex marriages, increased defence spending, and an interventionist foreign policy within NATO, as well as stronger counter-terrorist measures at the expense of personal freedoms.

[Pacific Haven]

snip

Looking good so far, I'll be interested to see his political positions in more detail.

[Arvenia]

I might roleplay as a Liberal Democrat.

[Regnum Britannia]

Still a WIP:

UK Political RP Applications
Name: Damian Spencer
Appearance:

(Image)

Date of Birth (Age): 22nd of June 1952
Current positions (if MP, add constituency): Member of Parliament for Lancaster and Wyre (2005-); Chair of the Conservative Party (2009-)
Past positions: Shadow Minister of State for the City (2007); Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury (2007-2009)
Political party: Conservative

Strengths:
Safe Pair of Hands: Spencer is widely seen as a competent administrator, which is why he was made Chairman of the Conservative Party in preparation for the next election. He can efficiently steer the ship of the Tories through any storm, and has a good understanding of administration through his employment in financial services and the civil service.

One-Nation Tory: As a one-nation conservative, Spencer fits in with other Tory MPs like not-Cameron and not-Osborne, who are young, progressive and seen as rising stars in the party. Spencer hopes to join them as well as like-minded individuals.

Weaknesses:
Damian who? Despite his ambitions to reach the top of the party, Spencer is relatively unknown outside of Westminster itself, largely working in the background despite his high-profile jobs. He will need to make more of a connection with the public in the election.

Out of touch: Spencer was educated privately, went to Oxford and is generally seen as an upper-middle-class Tory, which doesn't sit well in the economic crisis the country finds itself in.

Biography:
Spencer was born in Farnborough, Kent, as the only child of John Spencer, a local schoolteacher and secretary of the Royal Geographic Society; and Sophia Spencer (née Hughes), a nurse and later a charity volunteer. His childhood was loving and comfortable, their family having a small cottage in Kent, and he was educated privately at Millfield. After leaving school, he studied geography at Oxford, but later switched to modern history, graduating with a 2:1 degree in 1973.

Between 1976 and 1983, he worked at the Bank of England, and from 1985 to 1997, at the Association for Payment Clearing Services (APACS), as a political consultant. He served as Head of the European Affairs Unit from 1989 to 1993, and eventually rose to become Head of International Affairs by 1997. In that role he would learn new techniques in running a large organisation, as well as some geopolitical knowledge and how financial services were handled in Paris, New York and Tokyo.

In 1998, he joined CCHQ, specialising in trade and financial services. In the aftermath of the disastrous 1997 election, the party was in trouble and had no real sense of direction. In 2001, the party was divided over whether to join the Eurozone, and Spencer urged them to support a referendum. He personally supported joining the Euro, but was afraid that the public wouldn't back them if they argued for joining. In the end, the party chose to "Save the Pound".

Spencer would eventually become Head of Political Affairs at CCHQ, where he reformed the party's organisation and generally increased its appeal and range through the slimming down of the office while using new, modern, New Labour campaign techniques. Seen as a rising star in the party, in the 2005 election he was selected for the safe seat of Lancaster and Wyre. He was elected with a comfortable majority.

His first few years were rather uneventful. His maiden speech was on a debate on the Eurozone, and although he focused on his constituency, he also subtly hinted that he supported joining the Euro. He also contributed to debates on the economy, and made himself known as an experienced debater on financial affairs. As such, within a few years he was appointed to be Shadow Minister for the City, responsible for the City of London and the large financial sector. He advocated for a second round of Thatcherite reforms, including increased deregulation; but he left the role, luckily, before the Great Recession.

As Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Spencer opposed the National Wealth Fund and quantitative easing in general, on the grounds that it was risky, dangerous and would deter investment by foreign companies. He also opposed the cutbacks by the government, especially on defence and education, and urged the government to "readjust its priorities to better serve the public".

In 2009, in the preparations for the general election, Spencer was moved to become Chair of the Conservative Party, which he has held ever since. His main task of making the party ready for the election has gone smoothly, and within Westminster he is known for his good administrative skills and cool manner of handling matters.

Political positions: As a one-nation conservative, Spencer supports social programs to support the working classes, as well as keeping traditional institutions and structures. He supports a bailout to the British people, the triple-lock pension scheme, and increasing spending on education, as well as supporting the underdeveloped North of England. He also supports same-sex marriages, increased defence spending, and an interventionist foreign policy within NATO, as well as stronger counter-terrorist measures at the expense of personal freedoms.

This is no longer a WIP

[Tinhampton]

3. As I said in the intro, party leaders can change policy from when their RL counterparts were elected; the Labour and Tory leaders from 2005, etc.

This rule should be waived for Respect (in Bethnal Green and Bow) and Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern (in Wyre Forest). Both parties always had the same leader, and both always had the same positions - a fundamentally local one in IKHH's case. It would make no sense for either party to change their positions on any issue.

I may apply for this RP, but I won't do so as not!Galloway or not!Taylor - just a historical point of order.

As the clouds on the horizon pointed toward a liquidity crisis, the possibility of the Bank of England needing to respond by copying the Japanese policy of Quantitative Easing. Recognizing this as a possibility, she’d subtly respond to media questions regarding the possibility of government responses to a possible credit crunch. Prime Minister Blackwood responded that there was consideration of mechanics such as a Quantitative Easing, but that parliament needed to find a way to ensure such purchases weren’t just a hand out to the rich. That method, would be the passage of the “National Wealth Fund Act” A Bill that required that all future efforts of Quantitative Easing by the Bank of England would have to occur through the purchase of equities on the London Stock Exchange, with a requirement that the fund buy and sell stock to ensure even ownership across LSE traded companies without prioritisation, with dividends being reinvested into the NWF.in their entirety. To ensure its speedy passage, the misgivings of certain members of parliament and the house of lords on the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 were addressed with far less fighting. The National Wealth Fund Act is the closest thing to a ‘signature policy’ of Prime Minister Blackwood.

[...] the start of the Bank of England's Quantitive Easing largely went underapperciated in the background £165 billion of equities would be purchased, to increase liqudity, leading to the NWF holding a little over 6% of the LSE's Market Cap, which helped drive a rebound in stock prices. Another £175 Billion in October QE would bring the total to around 11% of the LSE. However the NWF would not remain in the background forever, as it'd likely have a significant role to play in the upcoming budget, nevermind the election.

I'm aware that this app has been accepted by OP without reservations, but this is simply not how QE works. A central bank engages in QE by creating bank reserves, and then using those reserves to buy securities. A stock is a security, as are shares in stocks - so, in theory, those could be used to support QE operations. However, QE in the real world normally involves the purchase of bonds. Bonds are debt securities; stocks are equity securities. (And the NWF may only purchase equity securities.)

All things being considered, the UK Government is a far more reliable destination for investment than your average FTSE 250 company. The Companies Act 2006 (which I'm assuming exists in A Brighter Future) requires that companies be focused on the generation of profit and therefore legally precludes such innovations as stakeholder capitalism. Any given government is unlikely to out-and-out collapse in any given year. Governments issue bonds all the time to raise money for things like infrastructure spending; stocks are only created, and only generate money for the company, at (primary and secondary) offerings and their main permanent purpose is to express ownership in the company.

The central bank owning a bond will always create wealth for the government: the amount it invests is the amount it is lending the government, which the government can use immediately to fund projects. The central bank owning a stock will never produce immediate wealth for the government. Why? Firstly, every investor knows that "the value of your investment can go up as well as down" - there is therefore no guarantee that wealth will be generated at all. Investors are recommended to buy more bonds, and less stocks, as they grow older simply because bonds are less risky.

Secondly, the purchase of stocks will - always and in every situation - always result in the payment of either the previous shareholder or the payment of the company. The company can only be paid if stocks are bought at offering. However, the BoE cannot purchase shares for the NWF in the offering period, because that would mean buying shares for some but not all LSE-traded companies (not every company will do a offering at the same time). The NWF cannot own 17% of Marks and Spencer and 5% of Kwik Fit, say: it must own 11% of M&S, 11% of Kwik Fit, 11% of AstraZeneca, 11% of Currys PC World, 11% of Tesco and 11% of every other company.

Therefore, the government's purchase of stocks will do nothing but compensate LSE shareholders, who are likely to be richer than the average person in the first place. This is the exact kind of giveaway to the rich Blackwood wanted to avoid!

Hence some questions:
1: Why is the Bank of England purchasing shares in companies, rather than UK government bonds?
2: How would the purchase of bonds (instead of stocks) result in a windfall for rich people?
3: How is the BoE's bias towards share purchases doing anything other than making it give away money to rich people - money which (given the volatile nature of stocks as against the relative stability of bonds) it may not recoup later?

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

3. As I said in the intro, party leaders can change policy from when their RL counterparts were elected; the Labour and Tory leaders from 2005, etc.

This rule should be waived for Respect (in Bethnal Green and Bow) and Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern (in Wyre Forest). Both parties always had the same leader, and both always had the same positions - a fundamentally local one in IKHH's case. It would make no sense for either party to change their positions on any issue.

I may apply for this RP, but I won't do so as not!Galloway or not!Taylor - just a historical point of order.

As the clouds on the horizon pointed toward a liquidity crisis, the possibility of the Bank of England needing to respond by copying the Japanese policy of Quantitative Easing. Recognizing this as a possibility, she’d subtly respond to media questions regarding the possibility of government responses to a possible credit crunch. Prime Minister Blackwood responded that there was consideration of mechanics such as a Quantitative Easing, but that parliament needed to find a way to ensure such purchases weren’t just a hand out to the rich. That method, would be the passage of the “National Wealth Fund Act” A Bill that required that all future efforts of Quantitative Easing by the Bank of England would have to occur through the purchase of equities on the London Stock Exchange, with a requirement that the fund buy and sell stock to ensure even ownership across LSE traded companies without prioritisation, with dividends being reinvested into the NWF.in their entirety. To ensure its speedy passage, the misgivings of certain members of parliament and the house of lords on the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 were addressed with far less fighting. The National Wealth Fund Act is the closest thing to a ‘signature policy’ of Prime Minister Blackwood.

[...] the start of the Bank of England's Quantitive Easing largely went underapperciated in the background £165 billion of equities would be purchased, to increase liqudity, leading to the NWF holding a little over 6% of the LSE's Market Cap, which helped drive a rebound in stock prices. Another £175 Billion in October QE would bring the total to around 11% of the LSE. However the NWF would not remain in the background forever, as it'd likely have a significant role to play in the upcoming budget, nevermind the election.

I'm aware that this app has been accepted by OP without reservations, but this is simply not how QE works. A central bank engages in QE by creating bank reserves, and then using those reserves to buy securities. A stock is a security, as are shares in stocks - so, in theory, those could be used to support QE operations. However, QE in the real world normally involves the purchase of bonds. Bonds are debt securities; stocks are equity securities. (And the NWF may only purchase equity securities.)

All things being considered, the UK Government is a far more reliable destination for investment than your average FTSE 250 company. The Companies Act 2006 (which I'm assuming exists in A Brighter Future) requires that companies be focused on the generation of profit and therefore legally precludes such innovations as stakeholder capitalism. Any given government is unlikely to out-and-out collapse in any given year. Governments issue bonds all the time to raise money for things like infrastructure spending; stocks are only created, and only generate money for the company, at (primary and secondary) offerings and their main permanent purpose is to express ownership in the company.

The central bank owning a bond will always create wealth for the government: the amount it invests is the amount it is lending the government, which the government can use immediately to fund projects. The central bank owning a stock will never produce immediate wealth for the government. Why? Firstly, every investor knows that "the value of your investment can go up as well as down" - there is therefore no guarantee that wealth will be generated at all. Investors are recommended to buy more bonds, and less stocks, as they grow older simply because bonds are less risky.

Secondly, the purchase of stocks will - always and in every situation - always result in the payment of either the previous shareholder or the payment of the company. The company can only be paid if stocks are bought at offering. However, the BoE cannot purchase shares for the NWF in the offering period, because that would mean buying shares for some but not all LSE-traded companies (not every company will do a offering at the same time). The NWF cannot own 17% of Marks and Spencer and 5% of Kwik Fit, say: it must own 11% of M&S, 11% of Kwik Fit, 11% of AstraZeneca, 11% of Currys PC World, 11% of Tesco and 11% of every other company.

Therefore, the government's purchase of stocks will do nothing but compensate LSE shareholders, who are likely to be richer than the average person in the first place. This is the exact kind of giveaway to the rich Blackwood wanted to avoid!

Hence some questions:
1: Why is the Bank of England purchasing shares in companies, rather than UK government bonds?
2: How would the purchase of bonds (instead of stocks) result in a windfall for rich people?
3: How is the BoE's bias towards share purchases doing anything other than making it give away money to rich people - money which (given the volatile nature of stocks as against the relative stability of bonds) it may not recoup later?

I'll give a larger response later but:

Quantative easing orginates from an early 00s Japanese policy that included the purchase of equities as part of QE, which they still to do this day. So you can't say 'that's not how QE works' when that's literally how its worked from the start, the only difference here leaning heavily on the purchase of equities, which would end up driving up bond purchases in much the same way that purchasing government bonds with QE ends up driving up purchases of stock.

[Pacific Haven]

3. As I said in the intro, party leaders can change policy from when their RL counterparts were elected; the Labour and Tory leaders from 2005, etc.

This rule should be waived for Respect (in Bethnal Green and Bow) and Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern (in Wyre Forest). Both parties always had the same leader, and both always had the same positions - a fundamentally local one in IKHH's case. It would make no sense for either party to change their positions on any issue.

In the event that someone chooses to apply for either, I'm happy to do so. It would be unrealistic (not to mention political suicide) for them to go completely off course anyway, so yes, consider their policies the same as RL.

snip

Accepted.

[Aelend]

Most of the BoJ's asset buying was through ETFs, not directly of the underlying equities.

Basically, this is a perfect example of why polsims typically have leadership elections, so that policy can be discussed before it is introduced, not crudely retconned in in such a way that every Labour minister would now have to support this policy.

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Most of the BoJ's asset buying was through ETFs, not directly of the underlying equities.

Basically, this is a perfect example of why polsims typically have leadership elections, so that policy can be discussed before it is introduced, not crudely retconned in in such a way that every Labour minister would now have to support this policy.

NWF is an Index Fund, the only actions it takes are to retain a composition that reflects the LSE.

I kept every other policy virtually identical to IRL, but you've got to whine over a single change while have no ideas for justifying a leadership election that isn't meta.

[Pacific Haven]

I'm aware that this app has been accepted by OP without reservations, but this is simply not how QE works. A central bank engages in QE by creating bank reserves, and then using those reserves to buy securities. A stock is a security, as are shares in stocks - so, in theory, those could be used to support QE operations. However, QE in the real world normally involves the purchase of bonds. Bonds are debt securities; stocks are equity securities. (And the NWF may only purchase equity securities.)

Buying equities as part of QE is theorectically possible- just hardly ever done before. The closest comparisons would be the Federal Reserve's TALF (which involved purchasing asset-backed securities) and the BoJ's buying of ETFs, neither of which involved purchasing bonds. However, given the volatile nature of the market, I won't accept it as a form of QE without major market distortion; it's up to the Government to decide whether or not to go ahead with it with this in mind.

To be clear, in the short term this will be incredibly risky, both financially and politically, but since this is politics after all I see no reason why the government shouldn't be able to go ahead with the NWF.

Basically, this is a perfect example of why polsims typically have leadership elections, so that policy can be discussed before it is introduced, not crudely retconned in in such a way that every Labour minister would now have to support this policy.

They don't have to retrospectively agree with everything the Government does- they can see what the Government has done so far, and add to their biography if they agree with it or not. They can retcon into their character that they disagree/agree/voted against/voted for/resigned from the Government over it.

[Aelend]

Name: Jack Nicholson
Appearance:

Date of Birth (Age): September 11, 1955 (54)
Current positions (if MP, add constituency): MP for South Cambridgeshire
Past positions: PPS to the Shadow DTI Secretary, Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury
Political party: Conservative & Unionist

Strengths: Has made few enemies. Relatively modern on social issues. Emerged relatively unscathed from the expenses scandal, being ranked in the bottom 100 of MPs for claims made.

Weaknesses: Anonymous backbencher who's spent 12 years in Parliament with little to show for it. Disliked by social conservatives over his moderation. Additionally, his name (OOC: randomly generated!) is sometimes the stuff of jokes, being that he is a boring minor British regional politician and not a cocaine snorting Hollywood actor.

Biography: Jack Nicholson was born in Bedford in 1955, and grew up in Peterborough in a what he describes as a "lower middle class but staunchly Conservative" family home. His father, Logan Nicholson, was a Scottish welder and former amateur boxer who had represented Scotland at the Commonwealth Games; his mother, Lucy, a shopkeeper. He attended The King's (The Cathedral) School in Peterborough, where he was head boy, and went on to the University of Durham to read law.

At Durham, he became involved in Conservative student politics. As a member of the Federation of Conservative Students he generally aligned with the wet (moderate) faction and was present at the formation of the Tory Reform Group. After graduation he attended the Kennedy School at Harvard on a scholarship, and briefly worked at CCHQ. He then trained as a barrister in commercial law, being called to Middle Temple.

In 1992, he was selected for the safe Labour seat of Vauxhall. With Sir Anthony Grant retiring, Jack was selected for the new South Cambridgeshire seat, winning election in 1997. He has won reelection every time since by comfortable margins.

He was mostly a backbencher under Hague, serving on the Home Affairs and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committees, other than a brief spell as PPS to John Redwood. He was offered a position as a junior Home Affairs spokesman under IDS but declined; though in general loyal to the Conservative whip he was increasingly identified with the modernising wing to the left of IDS's leadership. Under Michael Howard, he was Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Political positions: Jack is part of the Policy Exchange modernising wing of the party, though he is more of a market liberal on economic matters. A liberal interventionist, he voted for the Iraq War but was more critical of the government's counterterrorism legislation on civil liberties grounds. He is strongly supportive of the independence of the Bank of England. He supports continued EU membership but has been critical of EU institutions and the CAP.

[Pacific Haven]

-snip-

Accepted, welcome aboard! IC should come relatively soon.

[Catalaonia]

UK Political RP Applications
Name: Harrison O'Connor
Appearance:

Date of Birth (Age): 30th June, 1960
Current positions (if MP, add constituency):
- Leader of the SNP [2004-]
- First Minister of Scotland [2007-]
- MSP for Moray [1999-]
Past positions:
- Deputy Leader of the SNP [2000-2004]

Political party: Scottish Nationalist Party

Strengths:

Balance of the Force - A Moderate in the SNP, O'Connor is seen as a figure of unison between the more hardliner members of the SNP, whether that being the more extreme nationalists or the economically left-wing members, and to the moderates, who want a more progressive and long-term strategy of Scottish Independence, as-well-as the economic moderates who want to move away from the ways of state control and more aligned with perhaps a Blair-style economy. His moderate persona and politics allow him to be a steady hand in power.

Popular With Them All - Having led the party since 2004, he has become a popular figure within the party and has allowed him to feel a sense of security within the party which other leaders failed to gain, has allowed him some space to do what he likes. This also connects with his moderate political persona and allows him to be a very influential figure in the SNP itself.

The Negotiator - Following the 2007 Scottish Parliament Election, Harrison managed to negotiate a 3-way coalition with the Liberal Democrats and Green Party, making key promises concerning economic promises on the environment and on Scottish nationalism. He coined the term "Gradual Nationalism" - a civic nationalism which looked to gain more regional autonomy slowly. This idea has both been praised for it's pragmatism and long-termism but criticised by more hardliner nationalists for it's pragmatic-style plan.

Weaknesses:

Traitor and Sell-Out - His ongoing coalition with the Lib Dems and Greens has been seen by the more nationalistic members of the SNP as-well as the more youthful members as being a sell-out to the unionists and backtracking from nationalist police in favour of a more workable relationship with the coalition partners.

Recession-Era Politics - In the middle of a recession and Scottish Finances are in trouble, Harrison has placed himself, to some, too close to PM Blackwood in the response, but to the Westminster bubble and perhaps the educated middle-class, too far estray and interventionist and has on many occasions pushed for further powers concerning economic and financial policy.

Flip-Flopper - Since becoming First Minister in 2007, he has backtracked on many policies, such as the economy and social policy, with the ongoing 3-way coalition and a still-recession Scottish economy making it increasingly harder for Harrison to be completely committed on a full-blown recovery, making him fairly unpopular amongst the more ideological and those who oppose his more cautious economic measures.

Biography:

Harrison Datford O'Connor was born in the Town of Elgin

Political positions:

[Pacific Haven]

snip

Looks good thus far, especially with a potential indyref on the horizon...

Time to start writing an election guide. It'll be very formulaic, with a specific action causing a specific popularity boost in a specific area, but hopefully it'll be flexible for everyone.

[Pacific Haven]

Reserving the Conservative Party leader. Expect app later tonight.

Your reservation is actively depreciating. Just like the markets in 2008.

Are you going to do your app, or should I consider it to be fair game for everyone?

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

I changed the NWF portion a little bit in my app before I do an IC posting, hope its fine.

Are we still going to do this RP?