Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 02-13-2017, 07:04 PM

I'd point out that the constitutional crisis of 2016 was, if anything, the end result of factionalism, not the cause of it. At the Great Council we all agreed that it was part of the problem and that we had to work to reduce it.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Escade · 02-13-2017, 08:23 PM

Looking at the MoFA election in particular, because there are two candidates with widely divergent campaigns and ideologies, it's clear that factionalism is not over and runs strong in the region.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

(This post was last modified: 02-13-2017, 08:30 PM by Escade.)

**Belschaft** · 02-13-2017, 08:45 PM

Which doesn't mean we should be encouraging it Escade; to the contrary, we should be actively trying to reduce it.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Escade · 02-13-2017, 08:47 PM

That's lovely to say, what practical methods are you suggesting that deal not with parties but with cronyism as a defining factor of TSP elections over several years?

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

***Kris Kringle*** · 02-13-2017, 08:49 PM

(02-13-2017, 07:04 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I'd point out that the constitutional crisis of 2016 was, if anything, the end result of factionalism, not the cause of it. At the Great Council we all agreed that it was part of the problem and that we had to work to reduce it.

The coup. Let's call it what it is.

And the problem is there wasn't a genuine effort to reduce it, only to hide it under the banner of unity and avoiding drama.

--

I have two things to say:

1. If the goal is to be on reasonable terms with parties and their members, the kind of criticism displayed in this thread (to the point of calling some people "treasonous") is a very bad idea.

2. I'm still not sure what the goal here is. Is there a bill someone wants to submit? Is there a resolution someone wants to draft? Or are we just going to go in circles, fully aware that neither side has any intention of submitting?

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

**Belschaft** · 02-13-2017, 08:52 PM

Well, how about we don't establish as a political "normal" decisions being made via back-room deals? How about instead of conducting primaries and nominations processes among select groups, the whole body of the Assembly gathers and considers all candidates for office? And then everyone votes based upon their own views and opinions, rather than as part of a part-political process. We just stick with the basic assumption that decisions are made by everyone collectively, via the Assembly rather than some other shadowy process that some but not all legislators get to take part in.

It's not going to stop factionalism or cronyism, but it's got a better than just throwing our hands up and institutionalising what we all used to agree was a bad thing.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Escade · 02-13-2017, 09:13 PM

So we can't address factionalism or cronyism, then I guess the whole conversation is moot.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

Omega · 02-13-2017, 09:35 PM

Howdy folks. I've got a couple of things to say:
1. Can we all watch our language? I know I'm no longer CoA and I'm in no official position to say this, but let's show a bit of decorum okay folks?
2. The APC was created out of the Coup or Crisis or whatever we are calling it to help promote unity and to work to reduce toxicity.
3. The APCRC has acknowledged that we did the endorsement wrong. Can we just admit that something like it won't happen as long as the APC is led by any of its current members?
4. What is the problem with a group of people deciding who to endorse through a democratic process?
5. I want to note that we do vote upon our own opinions and the APC has not and will not ever whip its members into voting for who the party endorses.
6. I would be shocked if the APC promoted factionalism in such a way that led to a coup due to the fact that ANYONE (who is a legislator) can join the party.
Also just as an observation a lot of this discussion is focused toward TIL. I know people in TIL are generally good people and I think everyone here (or I like to think at least) wants what is good for the Coalition and not for their own personal political gain. Stop me if I am wrong on any of this.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

(This post was last modified: 02-13-2017, 09:43 PM by Omega.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 02-13-2017, 09:37 PM

(02-13-2017, 08:52 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Well, how about we don't establish as a political "normal" decisions being made via back-room deals? How about instead of conducting primaries and nominations processes among select groups, the whole body of the Assembly gathers and considers all candidates for office? And then everyone votes based upon their own views and opinions, rather than as part of a part-political process. We just stick with the basic assumption that decisions are made by everyone collectively, via the Assembly rather than some other shadowy process that some but not all legislators get to take part in.

You have political parties in the region. It's naive to think they won't decide how to vote.

(02-13-2017, 08:52 PM)Belschaft Wrote: institutionalising what we all used to agree was a bad thing.

I don't remember us every agreeing that parties deciding who to endorse is a bad thing.

--

Honestly, and I don't mean that in a snarky way, what's the point of this thread? If no bill will be submitted, what's the point of going in circles? What do you assume will happen, that party members will suddenly break and say you were right all along? I mean, it seems like a wasted effort, because people in both sides strongly believe what they do, and nobody is offering a solution that the Assembly could vote on, which is, after all, it's raison d'être.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 02-13-2017, 09:41 PM by Kris Kringle.)