A cabinet of talents, most likely.

It appears the defining feature of an NPW government would be too much comic sans.

League of Centre Conservatives (LCC)

"Do you believe the Talossan Monarch should be more than a powerless figurehead? Do you believe in the cultural and political significance of the provinces? This broad coalition of centrists and conservatives (hence our name) is ready to deliver the active, principled opposition which has recently been sorely lacking."

Leader: Ian Platschisch

Candidate List:
Brenier Itravilatx
Sir Cresti Siervicul
Jordan Placie

Platform link: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=349.0

Quote from: Açafat del Val on July 12, 2020, 03:13:06 PM
Could someone add my Wiki account 'adv' (short for Açafat del Val) to the 'citizen' group, so that I may make edits and such?

Thanks!

Done

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on July 11, 2020, 04:31:36 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 09, 2020, 09:58:39 PM
AMP's statement on RZ28:

King of Talossa is too important a role to give to just anybody who happens to be the King's son. (Note that AMP is no longer a political party, is not contesting this election, and now exists as a think tank).

Is the last bit supposed to be included in the statement?

Yes, I didn't want people to be confused about why we have a statement but did not appear on the ballot

I, the Grand General Secretary of Maritiimi-Maxhestic, certify we will conduct our own Senate election.

Had I known in advance I was going to have a hard time conveying exactly what I wanted AMP to stand for, I would have done some things differently. I didn't go into it expecting that, so this critique boils down to a critique of my prophesy skills. I only arrived at these conclusions after some reflection.

As for the type of Government the LCC wants, that is very simple. Our manifesto is literally three sentences. Voters should have no trouble envisioning it.

There's a difference between just wanting the King to be more active and actually doing something about it. A lot of the King's most recent Independence Day speech, and some of his other statements, seemed to me like responses to AMP's various statements and proposals.

AMP's statement on RZ28:

King of Talossa is too important a role to give to just anybody who happens to be the King's son. (Note that AMP is no longer a political party, is not contesting this election, and now exists as a think tank).

I am opposed to this referendum. What would be the point? Would the next Government actually refrain from trying to further reduce the power of the Monarchy if that is what the referendum indicated? Because that is not what I recall the FreeDems did after the previous referendum.

More seriously:
-Are you aware of anyone who actually did not immigrate because they were uncomfortable giving out their contact details?
-There are several options for fulfilling this requirement that do not involve giving away contact details (ie Chatzy, which, while not really in use right now, is so easy to access that an immigrant's request to talk there would be honored almost immediately).
-If the problem is that no existing citizens interact with immigrants, it seems we should figure out how to fix that rather than capitulate. Lack of interaction with existing citizens is, I bet, a big part of why new ones rarely seem to stick around, so "solving" that problem by passing this bill would not really solve anything.

Come on man. I leave for five minutes...

In hindsight I probably should have seen this coming.

It certainly seems like I have ended up a conservative not because my views ever changed, but because I helped pass so many reforms that I inadvertently helped to push the Overton Window way left.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 09, 2020, 08:43:30 PM

Quote from: Cresti d.I. Nouacastra-L. on July 09, 2020, 08:37:50 PM
Well, my question is what does the LCC intend to achieve that the AMP could not? And while on the topic, what really were some of the major accomplishments of the AMP?

To be fair, the essence of an appeal to a conservative audience is that you're not going to do things. But it seems that the appeal of the Big Box o' Beavers is "being active, while preventing future constitutional reform". So I suppose the record of activity of the Distáin is fair game.

I'd say conservatism is a lot more than "not doing things," and I actually agree with a lot of the FreeDem platform when it discusses ways to promote activity. However, I am not afraid to admit that I will oppose future constitutional reform if I think it will be bad.

I am literally the person who rewrote the entire Organic Law, so any argument to the effect of "don't vote for these chumps because they will reject any Organic reform out of hand" is not likely to get anywhere.

Quote from: Cresti d.I. Nouacastra-L. on July 09, 2020, 08:37:50 PM
Well, my question is what does the LCC intend to achieve that the AMP could not? And while on the topic, what really were some of the major accomplishments of the AMP?

My experience with "selling" AMP to voters was that nobody could figure out what to make of it. It's platform was essentially a list of things that I personally wanted, and while I am very grateful to have gotten almost 20 votes in two elections, it was not a very sustainable way to run a party. By my assessment, the AMP brand quickly became associated with idiosyncratic policies that no one besides me could really support; that is fine for a think tank (which is how AMP still exists, by the way) but not really for a party.

For example, a major success of AMP was, in my estimation, prodding King John into a somewhat higher level of activity; I focused a lot of energy on the message "The Monarchy is great, but this guy has to step it up or go away." However, it was difficult to hold a stable coalition of voters because Monarchists don't like it that you are trying to sack the King willy-nilly and people who lean FreeDem don't like it that you are staunchly defending the Monarchy.

Another major success of AMP was finally getting the new OrgLaw through. However, the same problem arises; some people thought it went to far and some thought it didn't go far enough. Of course, this suggests the AMP should be supported by Talossa's moderate contingent, and I suspect that's where most of it's support was coming from, but even that was not a sure thing. AMP did not serve up the usual MRPT fare; some of the platform was quite conservative, some was quite not conservative, and a lot of it was just weird.

To recap the rest of AMP's accomplishments:
-A lot of legislation that reduces bureaucracy and (I hope) increases activity in several ways
-Our Ministers were fairly active
-To pat myself on the back a little bit, the AMP Manifestos and some of my writings in La S'chinteia were some top-notch thought leadership in their own right, even if you disagree with me

That seems like a good list of accomplishments to me. AMP was right for the moment. But the inherent instability of its support base, coupled with the collapse of all other conservative parties, convinced me of the need for a new party that more explicitly opposes proposals that I (and a lot of others) really do not like, and that does not have AMP's baggage.