Announcing the League of Centre Conservatives

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Are you ready for a conservative party that actually does something?

For years, the representatives of Talossan conservatives in the Ziu have left much to be desired. Rarely did they ever take part in political discussion: As far back as the 50th Cosa, it was in fact the MRPT, not the RUMP, that did most of the campaigning in favor of a non-figurehead Monarchy. The 54th Cosa's attempt at conservative representation, the ZPT, was so hapless that it did not even claim its Cosa seats at all!

Talossans passionate about preserving the Monarchy deserve better representation than that.

Centrists, too, need an alternative to parties that embrace plans to disassemble the Senate and the provinces.

Finally, it has been ages since the Government had to deal with any serious opposition. Even if you are not a conservative, or if I am not your preferred spokesperson for Talossan conservatism, you have to admit I have been active in Talossa for more than five years, and that I know how to lead the effort to hold the governing parties to account. I know how they work; I've been in Government with them for the better part of those five years! Know your enemy.

Here in the League of Centre Conservatives, we have a very simple manifesto:
- We believe the King should be more than a powerless figurehead
- We believe the provinces, and their representation in the Senate, is an important facet of Talossan culture and politics
- We believe the Government should have to face an active opposition

Without the LCC, anyone more conservative than the Free Democrats (a serious chunk of Talossa's population, I'd say) would have no representation in the upcoming election. This is a large group of people to try to unify, consisting of many viewpoints, experiences, temperaments, prior political movements, etc. I named it "League" for a reason; I am not demanding your loyalty or writing a novella-length manifesto. The goal here is simple; give some amount of representation to a group of Talossans who have lacked it for a long time.

We are in pretty desperate need of citizens to hold our Cosa seats. Whether a citizen for one day or twenty years, if this message resonates with you, post here or send me a message.

Long live the King!

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

[C.d.I. Nouacastra-Läxhirescu, MSC]

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?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

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.

[Eðo Grischun]

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.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

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.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

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.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

This is in fact an occupational hazard - and this is why the Free Democrats keep having to step up the radicalism, or else end up in the position of the late ModRad party and become victims of our own success.

It has not escaped me that the Free Democrats are currently  finding it much easier to recruit people to our banner, not because of our policies or because of my sunny and welcoming personality, but simply because we are right now the dominant party in Talossa. 3 or 4 Cosas ago, this was the ModRads; before that, the RUMP. This will not last forever, and it would be easy to fall into the trap of becoming the "status quo party of technocratic administration", i.e. becoming what we always sneered at the RUMP for.

[C.d.I. Nouacastra-Läxhirescu, MSC]

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.

You claim that nobody could get behind your idiosyncratic views, and by admitting this, why not just support an existing party and align your views with theirs, as opposed to creating a whole new party, knowing the following won't be large? Having been a member of the AMP, I can't say that I ever truly knew what EXACTLY the party stood for. Yes, I can read manifestos all day every day and I do indeed admit that the writing was goos, but if nobody can truly understand or envision the type of government the AMP (and now the LCC) is trying to create, what's the point?

You also mention nudging the King to become more active. Quite frankly, I saw no more/less activity than when before the AMP initially gained its votes. I think everyone, even outside of the AMP/LCC, wants the King to be more active both on and off Witt.

I'm in no way dissing the party, but these are things I've thought about personally, having been in the inside. 

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

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.

His Maj can speak for himself if he chooses; but Free Democrats would, naturally, prefer to ascribe it to the good personal relationship I've built with the King over my terms as Seneschál, despite our very different politics.

[esbornatfiglheu]

What would an LCC govt. look like?  You're setting yourself up as an opposition, but what should happen if you win?

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

A cabinet of talents, most likely.

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