[PRESS RELEASE] Free Democrats release Shadow Cabinet

[Glüc da Dhi]

If the plan was to create a truly non politcal cabinet, then why

1. are ministers required to support the VoC?

2. do ministers have to sign up to the FreeDem campaign first and will the FreeDems not consider people who didn't afterwards?

3. would do the FreeDems consider a coalition with the RUMP (who I suspect will also be looking for some ministers outside their cabinet) to be so bad for reasons that are mostly political?

4. would one of the most agressively partisan people in Talossa become PM?

For the record Im not saying these are all bad things. I agree with some parts of them and I think all of these are understandable from a FreeDem perspective.

I suspect there are FreeDems members who would also not serve under a RUMP administration

Sadly, because the civil service is so inactive, ministers themselves will have to do most of the work themselves, but the thing is, in essence the ministers are the ones politically responsible for government policy, they are political positions. Many people on the left used to criticise the RUMP for being an ideological pot pie blob of administrators. People didnt always join the RUMP because they agreed with their ideology, but because they were the most active and for some because it was the easiest way to get a position in the administration. But we can't elect a cabinet, only the ziu. The ZRT or the MRPT or the LibCons would never have been succesful if people hadn't voted on ideas or ideology. Personally, I fear that the same might happen in the future, but on the other side of the spectrum.

From the perspective of prospective minister, I can understand why someone like Sir Cresti (just guessing) would be ok with serving as a minister of culture to help his country, but not sign up to a cabinet that doesnt exist yet, of which the policy and mandate is still unclear and to be part of a campaign, while another party could just as well appoint him. So if a government of talents is what you want, releasing a shadow cabinet might not be the best way to get there.

And other parties may disagree about who is the best person for a post. In the end, we are still a democracy (some autocratic form of government might be more efficient I guess) so I would feel a bit uncomfortable about the majority of the cosa not having a say on who gets to form the government. So if this is set in stone I suspect it will be even less appealing for other parties to support the FreeDems.

And with regards to the VoC, this is why MRPT MCs (just MC's, other members are not bound to any such thing) are only allowed to join a government with permission from the rest of the party. It's essentially a conflict of interest. MCs when voting should represent their party, not their own personal interest in the cabinet.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jan 12, 2016 14:40:55 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

However, it is practically wrong. As we found out in the last Cosâ, formal coalitions boil down to "you can't fire X minister despite massive incompetence / vanishing without a trace because that would upset the coalition arithmetic". Brenéir was there, he knows this.

You could have just asked, you know?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jan 12, 2016 14:43:09 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Jan 12, 2016 14:40:55 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

However, it is practically wrong. As we found out in the last Cosâ, formal coalitions boil down to "you can't fire X minister despite massive incompetence / vanishing without a trace because that would upset the coalition arithmetic". Brenéir was there, he knows this.

You could have just asked, you know?

C. Carlüs Xheraltescù, they want to start the circular argument again.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jan 12, 2016 14:41:00 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

If the plan was to create a truly non politcal cabinet, then why

1. are ministers required to support the VoC?

Silly question - a Cabinet minister who votes NO on the VoC is voting to sack himself.

2. do ministers have to sign up to the FreeDem campaign first

Basic reading comprehension suggests "no". Sorry, but I get tired of repeating myself.

and will the FreeDems not consider people who didn't afterwards?

If you don't like me or the Shadow Cabinet or Party I lead now - which Brenéir and cxhn. Biondeu don't, and fair enough - then if you came sniffing around our door after we win the election looking for a job, you should probably grow some self-respect.

3. would do the FreeDems consider a coalition with the RUMP

How many times do I have to repeat? NO COALITIONS, WITH NO-ONE, THEY DIDN'T WORK LAST TIME, THEY WON'T WORK THIS TIME.

4. would one of the most agressively partisan people in Talossa become PM?

Only if you win the election, Glüc.

But more seriously: this election is being run on the basis of me as Seneschál candidate. I've offered many times to step aside because so many people just don't like me, but the party has faith in me. It would be theoretically possible to stand aside from the Seneschálsqab if it were the only way to get confidence for a FreeDems government. I worry that that would be cheating the people who will vote FreeDem on the basis of me as leader, though. What do you think?

I suspect there are FreeDems members who would also not serve under a RUMP administration

Here's something to throw the cat among the pigeons. I would be willing to serve in a RUMP administration - on certain conditions which are not for public consumption, but I'll divulge in private to any RUMP leaders who are really curious. (Doubt they will be.)

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Jan 12, 2016 14:41:00 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

If the plan was to create a truly non politcal cabinet, then why

1. are ministers required to support the VoC?

2. do ministers have to sign up to the FreeDem campaign first and will the FreeDems not consider people who didn't afterwards?

3. would do the FreeDems consider a coalition with the RUMP (who I suspect will also be looking for some ministers outside their cabinet) to be so bad for reasons that are mostly political?

4. would one of the most agressively partisan people in Talossa become PM?

1. Why would ministers not have confidence in the government that they serve in? That is what the VoC is, a vote of confidence in the government, not in the party which received the highest percentage of votes or leads the government.

2. There is no requirement that ministers sign-up to the FreeDem campaign or even vote for us. We chose to reach out to individuals prior to voting because we wanted well-qualified individuals who would serve diligently and efficiently rather than ones who would require concessions based on their party's performance in the GE. Again, this is a non-political cabinet, so why would we need to wait until after the election?

3. The FreeDems has and would continue to consider RUMP members to serve in our government. A coalition would necessarily require legislative policy concessions or agreements, which would defeat the purpose of trying to have a non-political government of talents.

4. I'm not going to speak about any particular individual or individuals, but I will say that politics would not, in any way, hinder the abilities of any Cabinet-level minister to accomplish the tasks which have been goals of many governments prior. We all want coins, for example, and there is no need for politics to get in the middle of everything and distract a government from finally minting coins.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jan 12, 2016 15:00:22 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

1. Why would ministers not have confidence in the government that they serve in? That is what the VoC is, a vote of confidence in the government, not in the party which received the highest percentage of votes or leads the government.

Well, they are not just voting on themselves, but on the entire cabinet. They might feel the team as a whole is underperforming, or they might disagree with the decision of certain ministers. The government, especially the PM will be making political decisions, whether its about seeking contacts with micronations, issuing PDs, asking for injunctions on the election date. These things are driven by ideological differences. Its a valid point to say that if you don't support the team, maybe you shouldn't be part of it. But, doesn't that sort of prove my point? At the very least it would answer your question about why not more people are signing up.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jan 12, 2016 15:00:22 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

2. do ministers have to sign up to the FreeDem campaign first and will the FreeDems not consider people who didn't afterwards?

Come on now, to become a minister you first have to sign up to be in the FreeDem shadow cabinet which will be used in the FreeDem campaign. As far as I understand, people who didnt will not be considered. This is a political reason, not one based on competence. And it sure would be nice to let the government be the government and the ziu be the ziu, but you cant elect a government (personally I am still in favour of directly electing the PM using IRV so these issues can indeed be separated and we wouldnt be having this discussion) A vote for the FreeDems is also a vote for FreeDem policy and FreeDem MCs. That's not something I would sign up for at this moment (not that I was asked anyway.)

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Jan 12, 2016 15:17:45 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Jan 12, 2016 15:00:22 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

1. Why would ministers not have confidence in the government that they serve in? That is what the VoC is, a vote of confidence in the government, not in the party which received the highest percentage of votes or leads the government.

Well, they are not just voting on themselves, but on the entire cabinet. They might feel the team as a whole is underperforming, or they might disagree with the decision of certain ministers. The government, especially the PM will be making political decisions, whether its about seeking contacts with micronations, issuing PDs, asking for injunctions on the election date. These things are driven by ideological differences. Its a valid point to say that if you don't support the team, maybe you shouldn't be part of it. But, doesn't that sort of prove my point? At the very least it would answer your question about why not more people are signing up.

I would argue that that the government wouldn't be making political decisions, and to the extent that it does, I would say that the decisions would be minute in comparison to any bill that would be sitting in the Hopper at the time.

While it is true that the ministers would be voting on the entire cabinet, rather than just voting on their own performance, I would hope that any disagreements that a Cabinet member might have with the actions being taken by other members of the team be shared and discussed at the Cabinet level rather than the minister simply casting a surprising NON vote on the next Clark's VoC. For that matter, should a minister have such a hardline disagreement with the actions taken by the rest of the Cabinet to the point that he feels compelled to vote NON on the VoC anyway, perhaps he or she should consider stepping down.

But again, I would take the position that disagreements with government actions would be few and far between in the first place, especially when a non-political government would make it a point to not advance any legislative or political positions from government podiums. This is in stark contrast to coalitions, which make certain legislative positions part of their list of goals to be accomplished during their term in power, and voting UC on the VoC is probably a given in the first place.

Jan 12, 2016 15:25:15 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Jan 12, 2016 15:00:22 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

2. do ministers have to sign up to the FreeDem campaign first and will the FreeDems not consider people who didn't afterwards?

Come on now, to become a minister you first have to sign up to be in the FreeDem shadow cabinet which will be used in the FreeDem campaign. As far as I understand, people who didnt will not be considered. This is a political reason, not one based on competence. And it sure would be nice to let the government be the government and the ziu be the ziu, but you cant elect a government (personally I am still in favour of directly electing the PM using IRV so these issues can indeed be separated and we wouldnt be having this discussion) A vote for the FreeDems is also a vote for FreeDem policy and FreeDem MCs. That's not something I would sign up for at this moment (not that I was asked anyway.)

A vote for the Free Democrats would be a vote for FreeDem policy, FreeDem MCs, and our ability to lead a competent government. Approaching individuals outside of the party prior to the election should demonstrate our ability to lead a competent government, as well as demonstrate that we hold true to our belief that a non-political government outside of a coalition is the way to go. Individuals who decided not to join us chose politics over the people, but despite this, we would not rule out their consideration in some capacity in government; of course, our goal was to fill our list of Cabinet ministers prior to the election, and if individuals decided not to be on the list, the position will be filled by a qualified individual who did choose to be on it.

[Ian Plätschisch]

By putting one's name on another party's shadow cabinet, one is effectively endorsing that party, which could undermine the campaign of one's own party.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jan 12, 2016 15:00:22 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

3. The FreeDems has and would continue to consider RUMP members to serve in our government. A coalition would necessarily require legislative policy concessions or agreements, which would defeat the purpose of trying to have a non-political government of talents.

Well, if I understood Miestra correctly, agreements on legislation in exchange for support are not off the table at all. Only giving other parties a say in the composition of the government seems to be ruled out (as far as I understand, I might be wrong).

But honestly, while Im perfectly ok with debating your position on coalitions, that question and sentence was a mess. The point I was trying to make and the corresponding question is more like " If the plan was to create a truly non political cabinet, then why do the FreeDems (or at least the FreeDem leader) consider a RUMP or RUMP led government (who I suspect will also be looking for some ministers outside their cabinet) to be so bad for ideological and political reasons?

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jan 12, 2016 15:00:22 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

We all want coins, for example, and there is no need for politics to get in the middle of everything and distract a government from finally minting coins.

In the particular case of coins, I would not oppose finding an agreement with all parties to appoint someone (S;reu Taiwos for example) in charge of this project regardless of what government will be in charge.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jan 12, 2016 14:58:29 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Only if you win the election, Glüc.

Got me there . Hey, Im not denying my own partisanship (though in my case I personally wouldnt have described it as aggressive. Others are free to disagree.) But then again, I'm not trying to become PM of a non political government. When I was PM, the cabinet was partisan.

I worry that that would be cheating the people who will vote FreeDem on the basis of me as leader, though. What do you think?

That depends entirely on how you present it during the elections. If you are running as the candidate for PM, and promise to not compromise on that point as part of a coalition, then yes, not becoming PM would be cheating. If you make it clear to the voters that you will only become Seneschal if you get a majority but might step aside to compromise with other parties, thats fair game.

Here's something to throw the cat among the pigeons. I would be willing to serve in a RUMP administration - on certain conditions which are not for public consumption, but I'll divulge in private to any RUMP leaders who are really curious. (Doubt they will be.)

I suspect those conditions would sort of prove my point, but I can't tell for sure. We'll never know I guess.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jan 12, 2016 15:27:45 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

But again, I would take the position that disagreements with government actions would be few and far between in the first place, especially when a non-political government would make it a point to not advance any legislative or political positions from government podiums.

Does your party leader agree with this? Personally I must say I'm a bit sceptical about this. At the very least it was suggested that a RUMP government would not do something (or prevent something) about the issue of His Majesty (though it was left unclear what exactly), implying that a FDT government would (or would not prevent this).
I'm not at all convinced that citizen Miestra is running to become a non political PM.
(Then again, based on the campaign so far, I'm not even sure she wants to become PM at all.)

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The answers to some of your questions were obvious, I think, Gluc. Miestra is the only option for an FDT Seneschal, so there was never really much question about replacing her for a less partisan leader. The new strategy probably also has something to do with it; I don't think think everyone has forgotten the rough words exchanged during the fall of this last government, and others still remember the many other rough words that have gone before that, too... Miestra is not known for reticence. Ruling out a coalition means they don't need to worry about cooperation or comity at the top, or having someone in charge on the reins.

You've mentioned you don't think she wants to be Seneschal a couple of times, by the way. Why do you think that?

Dien, I have to say that I just don't see how the government could not make political decisions. Taking a Cabinet post means that you are going to be helping to make policy and guide the course of Talossa. If you recall, that's one of the stated reasons why all RUMPers were fired from deputy positions when the first coalition government took charge. We were assured it wasn't just because of our party, but because Cabinet positions and even all deputy positions were inherently political in nature, since you could make policy in those positions.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Jan 12, 2016 16:10:13 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

You've mentioned you don't think she wants to be Seneschal a couple of times, by the way. Why do you think that?

I am not sure about that. I can't read minds. But the actions and promises of the FreeDems seem to make a FreeDem minority cabinet rather unlikely.