[Royal Society] All-Party Debate

[Breneir Itravilatx]

Our party appears to largely be in agreement with the policy stance of the MRPT with respect to provincial activity and I found several points of agreement in the statement of the MRPT leader, Lüc da Schir. That being said, however, provincial activity is not the most urgent issue for the Talossan National Congress as there was little discussion of this issue during platform debate.

As a former resident of Maritiimi-Maxhestic and current resident of the province of Florencia I am a beneficiary of the Move Like Jagger Act and suspect the TNC membership generally supports provincial assignment based solely on geographical location. I suspect we might be open to either provincial closings or provincial fusion such as the current campaign to combine Maritiimi-Maxhestic and Vuode.

I would suggest we take an idea from the Republic and rejig it a bit. We might consider eliminating the Immigration thread and creating separate provincial landing piers where potential immigrants would be settled by immigration officials. Non-residents of the province would not be excluded of course. With each prospective immigrant it immediately begins their education of their home province and as we all come to welcome them and get acquainted with them it increases traffic to that particular province. I think it may help if we introduce prospective immigrants at the provincial level rather than in a standalone thread.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Thank you everyone for going on while I had an emergency to handle!

Here is the 3rd Question of the Debate. It's another multi-part one, which I hope will generate interesting discussions...

The order of answering is:

Free Democrats, RUMP, Talossan National Congress, Moderate Radicals

The Free Democrats have until 9PM TST tonight, and then, the RUMP has 12 hours after that, not counting the night between 9PM TST and 7AM TST.

Here is the question:

Whoever is Prime-Minister will nominate a cabinet in the next Cosa. Some parties have already posted a shadow cabinet or made specific promises on what each ministry will be tasked with.

Today's question is about the cabinet, but not the above points. What I want to know is: does your party have any ideas on how to possibly reform the cabinet so that the government will function better? Do you plan to offload some of the work to the civil service? Do you plan to have ministers which are not politicians? Do you have special tasks your cabinet would perform out of the ordinary or will it be composed in a special way?

Does your party have any ideas on how to reform the cabinet so that the government will function better?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

MPF, I'm sorry, and I don't want to really meddle too much, but do you think you could ask just a single strong question? It's hard to have a debate if we're all choosing questions from a list to answer, or just responding to your suggestions about things to do -- since then we're not providing a contrast, we're just talking about whatever we like from a list of possibilities.

Maybe pick the question you feel is most important or most pressing?

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jan 29, 2016 8:58:17 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

MPF, I'm sorry, and I don't want to really meddle too much, but do you think you could ask just a single strong question? It's hard to have a debate if we're all choosing questions from a list to answer, or just responding to your suggestions about things to do -- since then we're not providing a contrast, we're just talking about whatever we like from a list of possibilities.

Maybe pick the question you feel is most important or most pressing?

Yeah, I changed the question to a smaller one, just about the cabinet.

We had a crisis in the last Cosa about the Cabinet and I wanted a question, but I guess I didn't formulate it well. Too tired maybe? No, it's just me. Unclear.

What do you think of the simplier more direct one?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I think that's a better question. Sorry for interfering!

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jan 29, 2016 9:48:16 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

I think that's a better question. Sorry for interfering!

No, thanks a lot, I didn't like my first question...

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

With respect, I am really disappointed that the RUMP leader has decided to jump all over the rules of debate. It was my turn to answer the first question and I should have been allowed to deal with the question as given.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Anyway, to answer the original question(s):

does your party have any ideas on how to possibly reform the cabinet so that the government will function better? Do you plan to offload some of the work to the civil service? Do you plan to have ministers which are not politicians? Do you have special tasks your cabinet would perform out of the ordinary or will it be composed in a special way?

Glad you asked! This is of course a centrepiece of both the Free Democrat record and platform. Our motto has always been that government is for use, not for show, and one of our first acts in power was to combine 3 ministries into 1 (Interior). I'm not sure whether the Cabinet could be contracted any more, honestly - perhaps STUFF and Finance, but since STUFF was a dead loss last term, let's try to get that going with a specialist minister first.

Two of our major planks are the Cabinet of Talents and the Civil Service/Civil Society programme. The Cabinet of Talents will operate as a unity, without the partisan carve-up we saw drag down the last Coalition government. I hope to get the Attorney-General in the new Government to go through El Lexhátx with a fine-tooth comb and give us a report on exactly how much bureaucracy and useless verbiage we can abolish on the very first Clark.

As for CS/CS, as I keep saying, our central plan is to massively expand the non-political Civil Service's role in doing the work of the Talossan state - the process of which was sandbagged this term by the gridlock about how to elect the Túischac'h. We fixed that with 48RZ29, so there should be no more problems.

As to non-political ministers, well, we did try, but cxhn. Anglatzarâ turned us down with thanks. But having competent and respected ministers from a very different political party, working together for the common good of the nation, will be almost as good.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

MPF's not a delicate flower -- he won't wither away if I make a polite suggestion, I think. No harm done, either way.

Jan 29, 2016 7:27:30 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

Does your party have any ideas on how to reform the cabinet so that the government will function better?

It's been widely acknowledged that our Government needs to do better. That's one of the reasons why we think it's time for a change: the RUMP is asking for Talossan votes, since we think we're uniquely suited to help lead a new active government. That's why we've been promoting our Three Steps to a Better Government (transparency, deadlines, and leadership)... and more to the point, we're making specific and explicit promises to the Talossan people.

The RUMP promises:
1. We will not miss any of the legally required government activity reports.
2. We will update the national web properties to reflect ongoing government projects, and update them regularly from the beginning of the term to the end.
3. We will update the national web properties with accurate staffing and contact information, immediately, and keep it updated throughout all changes.
4. In the first month of office, the Seneschal will require all ministers to create and report to the Ziu their planned projects in significant detail, including timelines and specific dates for completion.
5. Every government official will be required to know the laws that apply to them and to know all their required duties.
6. If a minister feels overwhelmed, asks for help, or needs a break, we will not ignore them. We will act to help them. No one stands alone.
7. If need be, an inactive minister will be promptly replaced. This doesn't mean being a jerk about it.

And of course, the last point is perhaps the most important:

8. If we don't do any of this, quote this back at us and rub our faces in it.

It's not enough to say that these things are good or that you mostly support them, in my opinion. If you stand behind these things, state them for the record and take a stand!

Now, it's true that if the other parties all adopted this plan, a little of the wind would go out of the RUMP's sails. Our unique strategy for an active government... well, it wouldn't be so unique any more. But I think that any Government -- no matter who leads it -- would serve the country better if they were willing to explicitly promise these things. There's a risk, of course... you wouldn't be able to just ignore these things without paying for it badly at the next election. But Talossa can't afford do-nothing government at this point, not as we get quieter and quieter every month as more and more active citizens leave.

Talossa deserves an active Cabinet and an active government... and the RUMP has the clear and accountable plan to get us there.

[Breneir Itravilatx]

Jan 29, 2016 11:39:32 GMT -6 Breneir Itravilatx said:

Ministerial accountability
• Cross-party and some nonpartisan technocratic ministerial appointments based on abilities and competence
• Mandatory Performance Guidelines (performance on predetermined projects and timelines will be the primary criteria not political concerns) and the Office of the Prime Minister will conduct performance monitoring with government appointees no less than every two weeks
Ministerial Code of Conduct
• Each minister within the first month of appointment will have a plan of action containing program/task/project implementation directives with agreed timelines
• Each ministry will either have an accountable deputy or a designated alternate appointee to be activated upon unsatisfactory performance by the incumbent appointee
• Citizen Service Corps. As a part of the next Census, the Civil Service Commission will be directed to create a citizen skills inventory which will be used as a part of the Service Corps Initiative which will compile a knowledge base of those possessing useful professional skills in potential government service for use by incoming administrations in search of technocratic talent.

I reposted the parts of our platform which we hope to contribute to solving what, I believe, was the most significant factor in the dysfunction of the outgoing Cabinet. And we can either play the blame game or we can provide solutions based on a clear-eyed and reasonable evaluation of previous failures. We will push for a hard-line with respect to ministerial accountability and oversight along the lines described in our platform.

CLEAR PLANS OF ACTION & PERFORMANCE MONITORING. Let me be crystal clear here, for the Office of the Prime Ministry, for the Foreign Affairs Ministry and for the Interior Ministry we already have plans of actions with clear performance timelines and guidelines but for others we will push for firm programmatic plans of action within the first month of governance and pre-established timelines and points of performance review every two weeks. We will insist on active deputies in each ministry or where there are no deputy positions we will insist on alternative appointees. Any minister, regardless of coalition logistics, will be dismissed and replaced by their deputy or alternative appointee upon unsatisfactory performance.

RAPID APPOINTMENT OF SPEAKER. The inability of the Cosa to elect a Speaker was also at the core of our difficulties in calling the Civil Service Commission to order. We will seek the repeal of the Articulate Amendment and we will seek as one of the first courses of action that a speaker be elected so that there can be no delay in the activation of the Civil Service Commission.

STREAMLINED CIVIL SERVICE RECRUITMENT & ASSIGNMENT. We will seek the inclusion of a question on the upcoming Census to help build a citizen knowledge and skills inventory. Interested citizens with skills of use to an incoming Administration would be eligible to participate in a new Citizen Service Corps. It is hoped that the inventory would be regularly updated and refreshed and that this would streamline the process of identification and placement of talent based on ever-evolving administrative needs. Further we will seek a continuously active and nonpolitical Civil Service Commission through necessary reforms.

[Lüc da Schir]

Well, it's my opinion that any future government will need to reduce the scope of what it wants to do. It's clear that wanting to do too much stuff often actually leads to barely completing one item of your program at all. Ministers need to have clearly-laid, minimal yet comprehensive programmes at the beginning of their term in office.

I will make a point for the Prime Minister to hand over to the Minister of Finance the duty of presenting a Budget before the Ziu, and instead focusing his first weeks in office on a mandatory Cabinet's Agenda Sense of the Ziu that will be presented to the Ziu to be cerimonially voted on along with the first Vote of Confidence.
I will also make a point for monthly Prime Minister's Questions (in the Prime Minister's house) and Leader of the House's Questions (in the other house) to be held around the 15th of the month (even in recess months), to make sure the opposition can scrutinise the activity of government in an organised and efficient way.

I agree with the National Congress' leader that we absolutely need to have a Speaker elected as soon as possible. An elected Speaker not only empowers the opposition to scrutinise the activity of the government through Terpelaziuns, but can also get the Civil Service Commission to start working so that it can begin its contribution to Talossa's governance.

Finally, I would argue that ministers should be encouraged to delegate oversight of certain items of their programmes to their deputies, to ensure that each minister and deputy is focusing on only one item at a time and actually getting those done before moving on to the next item. The Prime Minister should also make sure that his team is organized in the most efficient way possible, with the optional cabinet posts mentioned in the Organic Law actually being used and a Minister to the Organic Law Reforms, or a Minister for the Legislative Agenda being appointed as ministers without portfolio and in charge of overlooking the Government's legislative programme and making sure the ministers can focus on their respective executive agenda.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Thank you all! The 4th question will come later today or tomorrow morning as I am on the road at the moment

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Here is the 4th Question. The order of answering is:

RUMP, Talossan National Congress, Moderate Radicals, Free Democrats

The question is:

There is a balance of power in Talossa between the King, The Cosa, The Senate, the Prime-Minister's PD and the Cabinet as well as with the population (via referendums). Does your party believe in the status-quo or do you promise changes in that separation/balance of power, notably considering recent events?

The RUMP has until noon tomorrow to answer, exceptionally, since this is Saturday night and I didn't promise I could post it today.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I believe there should be some changes to the status quo.

In the first place, the Seneschal's power to issue Prime Dictates is too broad. The Ziu should limit this power in certain respects, and restrict the ability of the Seneschal to issue laws that affect the workings of the Ziu or that appropriate money. Up to the present time, this hasn't been an issue, but that's only because we have been fortunate in our Seneschals. It's a glaring loophole, and it's just waiting for someone unscrupulous to take advantage of it. We need to be proactive and think ahead, and take care of it before it becomes a problem. The Seneschal has enormous power that has seldom been used, and I think too few people are even aware of that, much less appreciate the danger.

We also need to take a look at the monarchy. Like most people, I opposed the blanket veto that the monarch held over all referenda, by refusing to proclaim them. We're fortunate that we found a workable compromise in the 3/4 Majority Amendment. But at this point, we should consider further reforms to help maintain the monarch's important role in the country as an active figure. As I said in the M-M debate recently, the monarch provides the benefits of a stable and removed presence to both guide the nation and to serve as a cultural touchpoint. Particularly in such a small and volatile country as ours, this is important. Talossa has the potential to be utterly transformed in a short span, making it difficult to form deep attachments or traditions, and a strong and independent monarch is one of the only protections against mercuric election cycles. While the monarch should still ultimately be accountable to the people -- indeed, the OrgLaw states that he or she derives their power from the democratic grant of the citizens -- it is almost important that the institution be able to serve as a check against the other parts of the government.

I'd also like to note that you forgot to include the Secretary of State in your list; the SoS has far greater power than anyone in the Cabinet. In practical terms, our government has often operated with four branches: the monarchy, the Ziu (including individual checks by the two houses), the CpI, and the SoS. For a long time, the Secretary of State has tended to accumulate power and authority. This is often because it is a role that is both apolitical and powerful, and so it tends to attract people interested in administration and power. I believe that the time will soon come when we need to split off some of the functions of the Secretary of State, to prevent the centralization of a dangerous amount of power. The Chancery has already begun this process, actually, as certain Deputies are assigned specific roles. But a stitch in time saves nine.

[Breneir Itravilatx]

There are a few points on which we envision changes to the balances and checks present within our system.

The Proclamation Crisis precipitated by the King’s decision to not give royal assent to a popularly approved referendum illustrated the need for the Legislature to protect the expressed will of the people from being arbitrarily blocked by the King. It is the Monarch who derives his power from the people not vice-versa. We would propose an Organic Law amendment establishing the Legislature’s official ability to override a royal veto. Within our party we have entertained proposals concerning an elected long-term Monarch and a system of escalated constructive censures leading ultimately to removal due to either grave misconduct or official abandonment.

As far as the Judiciary, I personally proposed in party discussions that we should be concerned with members of the Judiciary serving in positions of public partisanship. This led to the inclusion of a plank recommending that the example of UC Chief Justice, Ian Tamoran, be emulated in the sense that he has volunteered on his public neutrality while retaining the right to private partisan activities which do not present any potential appearance of bias. Of all the branches of Talossan governance it is the Judiciary which has the greatest incentive to jealously protect its image of impartiality and of being free from conflicts of interest.

There was no internal party discussion on any changes to Prime Dictate. But we have proposed a change in the popular consultation process. Currently, the people RECEIVE referenda FROM the Legislature. We would like to add the ability for the people to draft and SEND initiatives to the Legislature.