Into the Next Millenium

[The Lord Marbury]

Interesting stuff.  Are any labor supporters leaving the party to support the Progressive Liberals?

A few, possibly, but there's not going to be any major shift in support from Labor to the Progressive Liberals.

No MPs either?

Nope, this is pretty much an entirely Liberal affair.

[The Lord Marbury]

I'm guessing that now, due to the establishment of the Progressive Liberals, that the Liberal Party's membership is now a good bit more "conservative" than it was before. 

Any chance that it may come to align itself with the Progressive Conservatives?  AmHeritage could be kicked-out of the coalition of that happened...

The Liberals and Progressive Conservatives have pretty much been sworn enemies for a century or so, and because of that there is not going to be any real cooperation between the parties when the Liberals have only been in third place for a few months or so. They wouldn't be inclined to work with the Conservatives until they've at least made an attempt taking down Labor, and even if that's unsuccessful there'd be a lot of handwringing among the Liberals.

Hey, just a question: what did you use to make your graphs of parliament during election night? 

I just made them in Excel.

[The Lord Marbury]

Desperation: The Rise of the Progressive Liberal Party


Official logo of the Progressive Liberal Party

The formation of the Progressive Liberals certainly came out of the blue to everyone, even if they were aware or unaware of ongoing political events. But after the shock of their formation had subsided they would have to avoid not quickly dropping out of the public consciousness and end up nothing but a brief flash in the pan. The Progressive Liberals, unlike other minor parties formed throughout the years, had the benefit of several prominent individuals like Jerry Brown, Walter Mondale, Pierre Trudeau, Ralph Nader, Paul Tsongas and Michael Dukakis already being in the party from the start. Early on Jerry Brown's mini-superstardom certainly helped the party as he made several media appearances during the months following the party's formation.

But the party of course couldn't keep going on Brownmania alone, and Brown himself obviously realized this, and therefore a "Platform Development Commission", with goal of developing the official platform of the new party, was put together as soon as Brown had officially been elected as the leader of the new party. The commission was chaired by Paul Tsongas, and included a few fellow MPs, as well as policy buffs from outside of elected office.

But one major problem for them was that while the party was founded largely on opposition to the direction that Bentsen was taking the Liberals in, the people who formed the Progressive Liberals did not see eye to eye that well either. On one side you had social liberals and fiscal hawks like Jerry Brown or Paul Tsongas, while on the other you had left liberals like Pierre Trudeau, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis who with their strong focus on social programs probably would've been a better fit for the Labor Party. In fact, it was largely thanks to these strong individuals that the party was able to survive its first few months in existense with relatively high polling numbers, however as they all would soon experience, a party held together by little other than several powerful personalities is not a good recipe for long term stability.

Progressive Liberal MPs
Jerry Brown, California
Jean Chretien, Canada
Don Johnston, Canada
David Berger, Canada
Ralph Nader, Connecticut
Michael Dukakis, Massachusetts
Paul Tsongas, Massachusetts
Walter Mondale, Minnesota
Bruce Vento, Minnesota
Jim Oberstar, Minnesota
Martin Olav Sabo, Minnesota
Geraldine Ferraro, New York
Charles Schumer, New York
Dennis E. Eckart, Ohio
Sheila Copps, Ontario
Les AuCoin, Oregon

Senators
Pierre Trudeau, Canada
Mo Udall, Arizuma
Pat Brown, California
Tip O'Neill, Massachusetts
Ralph Yarborough, Texas

[The Lord Marbury]

Coalition leaders announce tax credits for new cars; private education and health services
The American Post, January 22nd 1989

Following a tour of a General Motors plant in Oshawa, Ontario, Prime Minister Reagan, flanked on both sides by Deputy PM Pat Buchanan and Trade Minister Ron Paul, announced a new government initiative which would give cars owners the ability to deduct any car bought after August 1989 and onwards for a period of three years after purchase. The government hopes that this will help boost consumption in an economy which appears to become more and more sluggish. They also discussed, in less details, plans for tax credits for education and health services not provided by the federal government, which could hint that there may be something to the rumors about a school voucher program being in the early stages of development by the Ministry of Education.

Reactions to the new initiatives were generally negative on the opposition benches. While Ted Kennedy was positive to idea of making it cheaper in order to boost consumption, he was doubtful if a tax credit was the right was the right way to go about it, and he was also highly critical of the government making the tax credit available for any car, which he called "Nothing but a give to foreign conglomorates at the cost of American companies and auto workers". And when it came to the  tax credit for private education and health care, Kennedy clearly did not hold back when he said "The government is clearly not concerned with the needs of the poor or the average American worker since [the] tax credits would only benefit those who can afford those highly expensive services already, and the money wasted could just as easily have been spent on the public health and education systems instead." The leaders of the other opposition parties largely shared Kennedy's sentiments about the health and education deductions, while Lloyd Bentsen was somewhat positive to the tax credit for new cars and Jerry Brown opposed both on the grounds that it would add to the growing federal deficit.

[The Lord Marbury]

Gingrich under fire for "sweetheart" remark
New York Times, January 28th 1989

During a debate in the House of Commons yesterday between Education Minister Newt Gingrich (Prog Con.) and his shadow Barbara Mikulski (Lab.), Gingrich delivered a comment perceived as sexist which caused outrage among the Opposition benches.

Transcript:

The Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney, Speaker of the House of Commons: "The Right Honourable 2nd list member from the Province of Maryland has the word."

The Rt. Hon. Barbara Mikulski, Shadow Minister of Education: "Mr. Speaker, these latest news regarding proposed tax credits for private education coupled with the planned cuts to federal public education funding as a whole, are indeed most disconcerting. Can the minister give the American people an answer as to why the current government is prioritizing expensive private schools only affordable to the very rich while at the same time they are cutting back on the public education which is so desperately needed by the working people of our nation?"

The Rt. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Minister of Education: "Mr. Speaker, to the Right Honourable member from Maryland I can only say the she does not need to worry her little head with this particular issue. Sweetheart, in a few years it will become absolutely clear that…"

[Gingrich's voice is drowned out by heckles and cries of "shame" from the Opposition benches]

Gingrich's comments were quickly condemned by the leaders of the three opposition parties, with Jerry Brown calling Gingrich's behavior "demeaning and disrespectful towards the Shadow Minister of Education for no other reason than her gender", while Bentsen's office released a statement saying that Gingrich's words were "disrespectful and unworthy of a government Minister", and Ted Kennedy said that "[Gingrich] showed a clear lack of respect towards a fellow Member of Parliament and should be thoroughly reprimanded by the leader of his party for portraying such a clear lack of common decency." Neither Mr. Gingrich nor Prime Minister Reagan have been willing comment on the matter.

------

Disappointing numbers for the Tories
The American Post, January 30th 1989

API Opinion Polling has in the past month or so done extensive polling on several key issues, and news are far from good for the Progressive Conservatives, with 41% saying that the country is currently going in the wrong direction, and the public trusting the Labor Party more on important issues such as job creation, education and healthcare. But all is not bad for the Tories, as they are still the most trusted on defense and handling the economy, and Ronald Reagan still holds a comfortable lead over Kennedy and Bentsen when it comes to who would be the best Prime Minister.

Do you believe the country is going in the right direction?
No - 41,2%
Yes - 36,4%
Not sure - 22,4%

Which government do you think would have the best policies for….

A strong economy?
A PC government - 39,0%
A Labor government - 31,6%
Neither/other/unsure - 29,4%

A strong military?
A PC government - 48,5%
Neither/other/unsure - 25,9%
A Labor government - 25,6%

Creating jobs and lowering unemployment?
A Labor government - 40,3%
A PC government - 30,8%
Neither/other/unsure - 28,9%

A good healthcare system?
A Labor government - 39,5%
A PC government - 31,4%
Neither/other/unsure - 29,1%

A good education system?
A Labor government - 35,0%
A PC government - 33,6%
Neither/other/unsure - 31,3%

Which party leader do you believe is/would be the most capable Prime Minister?
Ronald Reagan - 38,2%
Ted Kennedy - 20,3%
Lloyd Bentsen - 19,4%
Ron Paul - 7,4%
Jerry Brown - 6,5%
Pat Buchanan - 5,9%
Neither/other/unsure - 2,3%

------

PM reported to be in good health
The Globe, February 7th 1989

The Office of the Prime Minister today released a full report of the Prime Minister's yearly physical, wherein, aside from some slightly elevated blood pressure, the PM was declared to in excellent physical condition for his age. Reagan's poor debate performance in the last election caused some fears that he was starting to develop memory issues, however the medical report should most likely lay most of those rumors to rest.

[The Lord Marbury]

Carter in 1979, shortly after being sworn in to his first term as Governor General.

Carter says no to third term
New York Times, February 10th 1989

Governor General Jimmy Carter was present yesterday at the opening of a new exhibition at the Metropolitan Art Museum in New York City, when he was asked by reporters if he was open to serving for another five year term as Governor General. Carter's term expires on April 23rd, and while he has previously been unwilling to say whether he is willing to commit to another five years as G-G, it has now become clear that he is not. "I am tremendously proud of the last ten years in which I have served my country, but now it is time for me to retire and get back into private life.", Carter said to reporters. Carter started first his career as in the Royal American Navy, however he would later resign his commission following the death of his father in order to to run the family owned peanut farm. Under his leadership the business bloomed and expanded until by the end of the 1960s the Carter Peanut Company was the largest provider of peanuts in the entire American Commonwealth.

A bit of a political activist and known supporter of the Liberal Party, Carter was approached by Prime Minister Lyndon B. Johnson to run for federal parliament in 1965 election, however he declined, instead opting to continue with his business. At least until 1973, when he was approached by then-Governor General Henry Jackson, in consultation with Prime Minister Nelson Rockefeller and Georgia Premier Zell Miller, to serve as the Lieutenant Governor of his home state of Georgia. After much consideration, he accepted and would hold the office until 1979 when Prime Minister Muskie nominated him as the next Governor General to replace Gerald Ford. Despite his known affiliations with the Liberals, Carter never got involved in any of ongoing political conflicts in the country, unless it was deemed absolutely necessary. This served only to endear him with the public, and as a result it came as no surprise when Prime Minister Reagan nominated him for another 5 year term in 1984. But now, when Carter is definitely out of the running for another five years, the Prime Minister will have to nominate a new Governor General to the Queen for consideration by April 2nd at the latest.


------


Comments? Questions? Critiques?

[The Lord Marbury]

Here's a little infodump:

Premiers of American Provinces, as of the beginning of February 1989

Alabama
Jim Folsom Jr., since January 1989
Liberal majority

Alaska
Frank Murkowski, since August 1988
Alaskan Independence-Progressive Conservative coalition

Alberta
Don Mazankowski, since September 1985
Progressive Conservative majority

Arizuma
Peter Domenici, since January 1983
Progressive Conservative majority

Arkansas
Bill Clinton, since October 1976
Liberal majority

Bahamas
Hubert Ingraham, since August 1986
Progressive Conservative majority

British Columbia
Michael Harcourt, since May 1987
Labor majority

California
Tom Bradley, since February 1988
Labor-Liberal coalition

Canada
Marc Lalonde, since November 1985
Liberal majority

Colorado
Dick Lamm, since April 1981
Liberal majority

Connecticut
Christopher Dodd, since October 1985
Liberal majority

Dakota
Quentin N. Burdick, since March 1978 (also from 1960 to 1967)
Liberal majority

Delaware
Shien Biau Woo, since June 1983
Liberal majority

East Florida
Maurice Ferre, since September 1985
Liberal minority

Georgia
Zell Miller, since May 1985 (also from 1971 to 1976)
Liberal majority

Hawaii
Pat Saiki, since November 1988
Progressive Consevative-Liberal coalition

Hudson
Jack Masters, since March 1984
Liberal majority

Illinois
Adlai Stevenson III, since April 1982
Labor-Liberal coalition

Indiana
Dan Quayle, since September 1981
Progressive Conservative minority with supply and confidence from American Heritage and Libertarian

Iowa
Neal Smith, since February 1979 (also from 1966 to 1971)
Liberal minority

Jamaica
Edward Seaga, since June 1984
Jamaica Labour Party majority

Kansas
John W. Carlin, since July 1976
Liberal minority with supply and confidence from Labor

Kentucky
Walter Huddleston, since December 1979
Liberal majority

Louisiana
Buddy Roemer, since August 1986
Liberal majority

Maine
Olympia Snowe, since May 1987
Progressive Conservative majority

Manitoba
Howard Pawley, since April 1980
Labor majority

Maryland
Paul Sarbanes, since April 1982
Liberal majority

Massachusetts
Edward Brooke, since May 1985
Progressive Conservative majority

Michigan
Donald W. Riegle Jr., since October 1979
Progressive Conservative majority

Minnesota
Arne H. Carlson, since September 1987
Liberal majority

Mississippi
Kirk Fordice, since March 1985
American Heritage-Progressive Conservative coalition

Missouri
Thomas Eagleton, since June 1981
Liberal-Labor coalition

Montana
John Melcher, since November 1977
Liberal majority

Nebraska
J. James Exon, since February 1984 (also from 1969 to 1977)
Liberal majority

Nevada
Harry Reid, since May 1987
Liberal majority

Newfoundland & Labrador
John Crosbie, since September 1984
Progressive Conservative majority

New Hampshire
Judd Gregg, since October 1986
Progressive Conservative majority

New Jersey
Thomas Kean, since April 1979
Progressive Conservative majority

New York
Al D'Amato, since August 1985
Progressive Conservative minority

North Carolina
Jim Hunt, since October 1981
Liberal majority

Nova Scotia
Donald W. Cameron, since November 1988
Progressive Conservative majority

Ohio
Howard Metzenbaum, since June 1980 (also from 1972 to 1976)
Liberal majority

Ontario
Jack Layton, since August 1986
Labor-Liberal coalition

Oregon
Victor Atiyeh, since July 1983
Progressive Conservative majority

Pennsylvania
Robert P. Casey, since October 1986
Liberal minority with supply and confidence from Labor

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
Rafael Hernández Colón, since April 1975
Labor majority

Rhode Island
Claudine Schneider, since January 1987
Progressive Conservative majority

Saskatchewan
Allan Blakeney, since May 1985 (also from 1970 to 1981)
Labor minority with supply and confidence from Liberals

Sequoyah
W.W. Keeler, since August 1974
Sequoyahn People's Party minority with supply and confidence from Liberals

South Carolina
Arthur Ravenel Jr., since September 1988
American Heritage-Progressive Conservative coalition

St. John's
James Lee, since November 1985
Progressive Conservative majority

Tennessee
Lamar Alexander, since February 1977
Progressive Conservative minority with supply and confidence from American Heritage

Texas
Ann Richards, since June 1988
Liberal-Labor coalition

Utah
James V. Hansen, since March 1984
Progressive Conservative majority

Vermont
Madeleine M. Kunin, since November 1981
Labor majority

Virginia
Douglas Wilder, since March 1986
Liberal majority

West Florida
Sonny Callahan, since July 1985
Progressive Conservative-American Heritage coalition

Wisconsin
Dave Obey, since October 1986
Labor-Liberal coalition

Wyoming
Malcolm Wallop, since March 1980
Progressive Conservative majority


Liberal - 24*
Progressive Conservative - 20
Labor - 9
American Heritage - 2
Minnesota Liberal - 1*
Alaskan Independence - 1
Seqouyahn People's - 1
Jamaica Labour - 1**

*While official numbers put 25 provincial parliaments under Liberal control, in reality it is only 24 since the Minnesota Liberal Party, while using the same name and colors, is not affiliated with the federal Liberal party due to generally be more right of centre and more in line with the conservatives due to having been the main opposition to the provincial Labor Party for the better part of the century.
**The Jamaica Labour Party, while in affiliation with the Tories when it comes to federal elections, has no ties to the party on the provincial level despite sharing most of their views on policy matters.

------

Comments? Questions? Critiques?

[The Lord Marbury]

Keep up the good work!

I'd love to see Reagan get ousted as PM

That could possibly be arranged...

------------

Desperation Part Deux: A Party in Crisis

Some four months or so following the formation of the Progressive Liberals it was finally time for the party to hold its own national convention. In the time since its formation the party had managed to recruit a sizable number of members, with provincial and territorial level chapters having been formed in every province and territory except for the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Jamaica. But what remained was probably even more important, and that was to actually agree on a common platform which the party would run on in the next federal election, in addition to forming the basis for future platforms. That job was left to the platform development commission, created by Brown in mid-December 1988 and chaired by Paul Tsongas. The new platform was essentially finished by the middle of February, when it was presented Brown who gave it his full approval. But no other high up members in the party would have the chance to read it prior to the convention, which indeed caused quite a stir with many criticizing Brown for the same kind of top heavy control prevalent in the Liberal Party. However the media came to the rescue, as a copy of the document was leaked to a New York Times reporter and they did in fact get a chance to read it, along with the rest of the world. But the reception was not really as positive as Brown would have hoped for….

------

"The ultimate goal of what we choose to define as 'progressive liberalism' is to shape a society based on the ideals of democracy and the inalienable individual liberties of all human beings."
-Jerry Brown, leader of the Progressive Liberal Party

"Long lasting prosperity and social progress are the primary goals of the Progressive Liberal Party. Therefore we recognize how irresponsible fiscal policies are one of the major obstacles in reaching these goals, and because of this we as party vow to always promote fiscal restraint and balanced budgets […]"

"A 13% flat tax along with a goods and services tax set as the same level is deemed to be ideal for reaching strong and long lasting economic prosperity in this country […]"

"As a party we are in favor of an official federally mandated implementation of trilingualism […]"

"As a party we strongly support placing a federal ban on the death penalty [...]"

"A reform of the way the social welfare system works, in order to remove excess bureaucracy, is deemed necessary to secure the long term survival of those important services we often take for granted […]"

Exerpts from "Innovation and Progress: A Roadmap to American Prosperity" - 1989 proposed Progressive Liberal Party platform

------

"Flat tax, balanced budgets, welfare reform, what the hell is that goddamn Californian hippie trying to turn us into, Libertarians!?"
-Quote attributed to Tip O'Neill

------

WM: "This is a disaster. We left the Liberal Party because of their drift rightwards, and now we have a leader who wants to take us all the way over to the far right fringe. Something needs to be done."

MD: "No argument from me. Have you talked to Brown?"

WM: "I called, but he won't budge. He drones on about how studies have shown that flat tax would more efficient than our current tax scheme, the need to focus on economic growth over fighting poverty, and blah blah blah. I'm telling you, the man has gone completely crazy."

MD: "Well that's that then. I guess it's back home to the Liberals for us."

WM: "Don't get ahead of yourself, Michael, we'll fix this. I'll talk to Pierre, and the two of us will go see Brown together. Together we'll let him know that he simply does not have the backing of his party on this."

MD: "Very well then. Good luck, I guess. You're going to need it."


To Be Continued….

[The Lord Marbury]

While I'm working on the next update, I thought I'd give you a bit of a closer look at some past elections.


Federal Election of 1943

With the start of World War II, Mackenzie King, despite commanding a sizable majority in the House of Commons, formed a national government with the Progressive Conservative and Labor parties in 1940. As a result of all parties being in government together, campaigning for the 1943 election was very low key and the Liberals gained several seats mostly as a result of many voters lining up behind them as the natural governing party in a time of national crisis.

Federal Election of 1946

Electoral fatigue started hitting the Liberals following the end of the war, and coupled with the election of Claude Pepper as party leader, it looked as if Dewey's Prog Cons were all but assured to win the next election. Pepper, who was percieved as too far to the left on many issues, as well being weak on Communism and a bit of an opportunist (he had switched party affiliation from Labor to Liberal in order to get elected to parliament), even caused a rift in his own party, when several MPs led by Harry Truman left the party to sit as Independent Liberals in protest over Pepper's foreign policy. But against all odds, Pepper's Liberals prevailed with a one seat majority. Dewey, who was blamed for squandering a 20 point lead at the start of the campaign, was eventually forced to step down as Tory leader.

Federal Election of 1951

Pepper's government had grown deeply unpopular by the time the next election came around, and despite being able to reconcile things with the Independent Liberals by offering significant concessions in areas such as foreign policy and defense, the Liberal Party suffered a major defeat and were ousted by the Progressive Conservatives led by Harold Stassen. The Labor Party, which had joined the Liberals in a coalition for the last two years of the term after the government lost its majority following a by-election, also saw its vote share collapse, resulting in Henry Wallace announcing his intention to step down as party leader. This was also the first time an election was contested by the Southern National Party led by Strom Thurmond, a party formed by a group of former Liberal and Progressive Conservative MPs, largely in opposition to Pepper's strong support of civil rights for African-Americans in the southern provinces.

Federal Election of 1955

The 1955 election was largely uneventful, with Stassen's government rather popular, quite few seats were lost, although the increase in the number of the seats in parliament from the last election twist the numbers. The Liberals, now under Lyndon Johnson's leadership, were able to recover some of their losses from the previous election, as was the Labor Party under Glen Taylor's leadership, but it was still not even close to overcoming big lead that the Prog Cons had.

----

Links to larger versions of the 46, 51 & 55 infoboxes:
http://i.imgur.com/iYh5V9I.png
http://i.imgur.com/dgZ5Z0z.png
http://i.imgur.com/FLEAJyS.png

[The Lord Marbury]

Awesome!  What do you use to make those?

I edit original election infoboxes in the wikipedia sandbox, and if some changes are needed which I can't do in wiki I fix that in Photoshop.

[The Lord Marbury]

Jerry Brown's Office - Meeting between Brown and Walter Mondale - February 15th, 1989

JB: "Walter, it's good to see you. I understand you wanted to have a talk?"

WM: "Yes Jerry, I do, and I wish that I could say that I was happy to see you as well, but we really need to discuss this proposed party platform."

JB: [sighs] "Walter, I realize that this is all must come as shock for you, but please trust me when I say that this is a good thing. It's new and different from anything that the other parties have to offer an it will create enough excitement for our party to carry us through the next election."

WM: "Oh come on Jerry, you can't seriously think that.

JB: "Of course I do, Walter. You especially should realize the importance of running on a strong platform in a general election."

WM: "Yes, but the difference between the two is that the platform I ran with at least reflected the views of a solid majority of the party's MPs and voters, while what you're proposing looks like something written up by an escaped mental patient."

JB: "Seriously Walter, that was just uncalled for."

WM: "I am serious about this. If you do not agree to open the program for changes you are going to have revolt on your hands, and I am sure not going to be there to help you."

JB: "Then so be it. Over these past months thousands of members have joined this party largely thanks to me and what I have brought to the movement, and come the convention they will finally have the chance to make their voices heard. And then we will find out just who's voices matter the most; those of thousands of young people yearning for change, or those of some stuffy old politicians who can't evolve with the rest of society."

WM: [brief pause] "Is this really what you want, Jerry? An open fight between factions just months after the party has been formed. You'll tear the party apart."

JB: "If tearing it apart and putting it back together again is what's required to get the party on the right track, then that's what I'll do."

WM: … "You can't seriously think that."

JB: "Yes, I do."

WM: "Well okay then. I guess the only other thing I can say to that is that I promise to fight you tooth and nail for the soul of this party when on the convention floor. Good bye, Jerry."

[Mondale walks out of the office]

-------

PM's Office - Weekly meeting between Reagan, Buchanan and Paul - February 17th, 1989

RR: "So we can all agree to a pilot program for school vouchers encompassing 1500 schools nationwide, with further evaluation in three years time?"

RP: "Yes."

PB: "Yes, that's fine with me."

RR: "Excellent, then I think we'll announce it as soon as possible. Make it a cornerstone of the new budget. However I feel that it might be best if it's the three of us who present the idea to the public at large prior to the Education Ministry's announcement. Newt certainly won't be happy about it, but I think it would be good if he stayed out of the public eye for while, considering his comments a few weeks ago."

[All three men laugh]

PB: "Oh yes, I heard about that. Boy, the opposition will think of any excuse to complain nowadays, won't they?"

RR: "Well in their defense it is in their job description. Though personally I do wish that they could be at least a little bit worse at doing their job."

RP: [chuckles] "Yes, don't we all."

RR: "Yeah. Now, with the voucher program done, I think we should move on to the growing deficit. It has turned out to be quite the problem lately with the opposition being very successful at using it to attack us. Research shows that it has rose from 11th to 4th in the ranking of matters the voters are the most concerned about. Not to mention with a recession looming on the horizon, it is high time that we do something to address this issue in order to secure the public's confidence in our economic policy."

PB: "Well then what do you propose we do?"

RR: [sighs] "I want you to know that what I am about to suggest did not come easy to me, as it goes against a lot of my core principles. But after discussing this both with Jack [Kemp] and Don [Regan], I have come to realize that it is the best course of action, with the least backlash attached to it."

RP: "Ronnie, you actually have to tell us what it is too."

RR: "I know. I propose increasing the federal Goods and Services Tax from the current 2% to 6%."

RP: "Ronnie, I have to say that I would not be comfortable supporting such a thing without a significant cut of government spending to come along with it. Yes, the idea of a sales tax replacing the federal income tax is something which I am in favor of in the long run, but this is just a needless tax increase used to justify more reckless spending. I'm sorry, but neither me nor my party can support it."

PB: "Yes, I'm afraid I have to side with Ron here. My party's core constituents are on average a lot less well off than the average American, and I would have a very hard time trying to sell a spike in the tax on food and other necessities when the time comes for the next election."

RR: "Ron, I have to say that the notion that this tax hike would come with no cuts in spending what so ever is a fallacy. As an example, the cut to federal higher education funding we agreed upon in October will under the new deficit reduction plan be at 8% instead of the 4 we agreed on then, the same for the aid to First Nations which will be reduced by 10% instead of 5. I would also be prepared to at least open discussions in regards to reducing funding for the Strategic Defense Initiative as you proposed during the fall, as well as certain other cuts. This isn't some demand I'm placing on you two, this is very much a work in progress I hope we can reach an agreement on which will be suitable to our separate parties. And as for your concerns Pat, I would hope that your voters would see the values of the income tax cuts we've already given then, as well as the cuts to First Nations funding, which if I remember correctly, was a key point of your campaign in the last election."

RP: "Well it's at least good that you seem to have finally realized the problem we're having with the deficit, and that you're also willing to look at ways to solve it, but I'm still going to have a hard time selling any hike in taxes to my party without significant cuts to areas such as health and education."

RR: "Well we can certainly talk about that. I was thinking that perhaps the three of us, together with Jack [Kemp], Andre [Marrou] and Bob [Dornan], could sit down and discuss potential cuts and privatizations. Just nothing too drastic, as to not awaken anger from the public."

RP: "Well, we can certainly discuss it."

RR: "Good. What do you think, Pat?"

PB: "Well with the increased cuts to the waste spent on First Nations, I think we can at least talk about it. But I can't make any promises, as I'm still not happy with the GST hike."

RR: "Being willing to at least have a discussion is good enough. I'll have a meeting scheduled. Now onto the next order of business…"

[The Lord Marbury]

This is a really high quality TL and has partially inspired my Parliamentary US TL "General Election - 1990". I hope you continue this, it's interesting.

Thanks a lot. I will be continuing this at some point just to make things clear, but I'm currently so busy with stuff IRL that I probably won't have the chance to return to this until june/july at the earliest.