Realpolitik of the Smoky Skies - The Reboot

Edit: Turns out I can use this post after all. I initially posted to ask something and then I found the answer to my question right after. But enough about that.

The Pulias People's Party wish to update the description of our party platform (on the first page) to better describe our ideology since the current one is a little outdated, mentioning goals to adopt policies that were already adopted 22 years ago and all.

The Pulias People's Party is a socialist party constantly working towards the total freedom of the people. We believe that the government is for all the people, not just the upper class, and we intend to bring Pulias into the future through means of peace and justice. Our political work is based on the three Ps: Peace, Productivity and the People of Pulias.

We believe in a borderless world of peace, and as citizens of the world we intend to make it our life's work to see that this become a reality. War has brought nothing but destruction to this world, and the Pulias People's Party condemns the use of military power for other purposes than defense. No person shall ever be harmed by us, unless they try to harm the people of Pulias.

In order to make Pulias a better place to live, we must invest in cultural development to build a nation where everyone is welcome to participate on equal terms. We must strengthen the production of our industry to be able to give back to the people what this nation owes them. And we must never tolerate aggressive warfare, because that will only help achieve inequality and devastation. The people of Pulias, and the people of the world, deserves nothing less than to live life as equals in a free world. We will never stop working until that has been achieved.

Join us in building a nation of freedom and equality! Join us as we help bring peace and justice to this world!

Signed,

William Melda
President of the Pulias People's Party

Gustavus Gurra
Secretary of the Pulias People's Party
 
Also, for any prospective members interested in joining the party, an explanation is in order for the official titles (this will soon be available in the party constitution which will be promulgated soon and available to all prospective members).

As our party generally eschews hierarchical systems, we decided the term 'Leader' was too authoritarian to describe the role of the notional 'leader' of the party, as the role is more of a co-ordinator because all members have an equal say in the running of the party.

The President of the Pulias People's Party acts as spokesperson and co-ordinator for the senatorial representation of the party in the Pulian Senate.

The Secretary of the Pulias People's Party acts as spokesperson and co-ordinator for the membership and organisational governance of the party.

At the moment all party members have Senate seats, but as we expect the party's ranks will grow over time it makes sense to be prepared ahead of time by formally establishing our party's structure.

To any prospective members in our society: our first official party constitution will be ready shortly. We will make a formal announcement once that occurs.



Interested observers may note that these new arrangements resemble somewhat the structure currently employed by the Pulian Advancement Union, where the party leader manages party affairs and the Prime Minister leads the nation. This was definitely an inspiration, however our system is admittedly quite different because the parties are organised and run differently. Still, as it does resemble the structure I would like to credit the Pulian Advancement Union's organisational arrangements as an inspiration to our new leadership structure.
 
I thank the Honourable Leader of the Opposition for commending his Private Senator's Bill to the chamber. I apologise for the delay in addressing the proposal; as you would know the formative stages of Government are very detailed and can take time.

The Government is of a view that a bill like your Ministerial Reform Amendment Act 1822 is in the national interest, given that the High Court ruled "The Ministerial Reform [Act 1822] is constitutional . . . as long as there are limits on the number of ministerial posts a single senator can hold at a given time."

But while the Government agrees with the spirit of your bill we can't support it in its current form. This might not have been adequately explained previously, but one of the main goals of the Ministerial Reform Act 1822 was to redress the perceived imbalance in power between the different ministries. By splitting certain portfolio responsibilities apart and distilling them into separate ministries, the intent was to allow for a more balanced and equal distribution of power between the ministries.

The Government feels that adopting Section A of your proposal, restoring the Interior ministry would be re-creating the same problem which the Ministerial Reform Act 1822 sought to remedy. The Government will therefore not be supporting this section of the bill.

Section B of the bill is more along the lines of what the High Court indicated, but I feel it is too restrictive. I think a maximum of three ministerial portfolios would be a more reasonable requirement, and I say that as a minister who turned down a third ministry.

Therefore I move the following amendments to the Ministerial Reform Amendment Act 1822 be adopted:

  • Section A is struck out
  • Section B is renamed Section A and has its text replaced with 'no person may simultaneously hold more than three ministerial portfolios'

In the interest of clearing the floor to move onto other matters, I propose any debate surrounding these amendments to the Ministerial Reform Amendment Act 1822 be limited to a twenty-four-hour period from this moment, at which point a vote is held to determine if my amendment of the Private Senator's Bill is successful or not.

That vote will close within 48 hours from that point and only be considered valid if at least four Senators vote on it. However if a majority vote one way or the other is achieved and no further votes will impact the result the vote can close after 24 hours. A simple majority either way will determine the amendment's fate. A tie will mean the amendment motion is defeated ((i.e. the Opposition's bill would proceed as it was originally proposed)).

Where we go from that point depends on the success or failure of the amendments:

  1. If the Ministerial Reform Amendment Act 1822 bill is not amended it will at that point proceed to a vote on the original draft text. That vote will close within 48 hours from the end of the amendment vote and will only be considered valid if at least four Senators vote on it. However if a majority vote one way or the other is achieved and no further votes will impact the result the vote can close after 24 hours. A simple majority either way will determine the bill's fate. A tie will mean the Ministerial Reform Amendment Act 1822 bill is defeated.
  2. If the Ministerial Reform Amendment Act 1822 bill is amended it will at that point proceed to a vote on the modified draft text. That vote will close within 48 hours from the end of the amendment vote and will only be considered valid if at least four Senators vote on it. However if a majority vote one way or the other is achieved and no further votes will impact the result the vote can close after 24 hours. A simple majority either way will determine the bill's fate. A tie will mean the Ministerial Reform Amendment Act 1822 bill is defeated.

Are there any questions about this process?

Once the Senate floor is cleared of the current bill, I have a proposal for codifying senate debating and voting rules which will allow adequate time for the debating of bills, and allow time for the proposing and voting on amendments proposed for bills. Once it is passed, instructions will not need to be as wordy as above; they will simply be part of the standing Senate rules. These rules are largely based upon lessons learnt through passing the Ministerial Reform Act 1822 which I do not feel had enough scope for debate and for which I take full responsibility. I have learnt the lesson and wish to redress the underlying issues. I believe the Opposition has a valuable part to play in the legislative process and I look forward to allowing the Opposition the ability to participate constructively in this place.

Edit: Changed 'the amendment' to 'my amendment' to save confusion (since the Opposition Leader originally intended his bill to be an amendment of a bill instead of a new bill to amend a previously passed law; the latter is obviously required)
 
Today's edition of the Haven Herald contained the following article:

Maestros' Momentous Musical Mission
by Isaiah Meriwether

It here follows:

Spoiler :
A new institution, the Royal Academy of Music was founded in Pulias City yesterday.

The Tenterden Street academy is intended by its founder, Colonel John Fane to be the premier conservatoire in Pulias. Colonel Fane, a prolific composer and talented violinist as well as a colonel in the Pulian Army was assisted in the establishment of the Royal Academy of Music by the Dalmacian harpist and composer Nicolas Bochsa.

Colonel Fane spoke at the grand opening: "For too long Pulians have had to look enviously to other nations, such as Dalmace, and see their talented musicians and wish 'if only'. The founding of this Royal Academy of Music is our way of saying Pulias is no longer a cultural backwater; we will become the musical envy of this brave new world!"

Mister Bochsa also spoke, with a heavy Dalmacian accent: "All the peoples of Pulias should be very proud of this, the Academy. In time you will be the cultural equal of the world. It is my hope this Royal Academy of Music will be even more successful than the Dalmace Conservatoire."

When I asked Mister Bochsa if he would return to Dalmace to act as a musical ambassador for Pulias he appeared panicked at the suggestion and refused to make further comment, directing me back to Colonel Fane instead.

The Colonel made it clear that any Pulian citizen with a promise for musical talent should make the journey to the Royal Academy of Music "to ensure their skills are properly honed and harnessed".



Today's edition of the Haven Herald also contained the following article:

Continental Coffee Calamity Concludes
by Calvin Orville

It here follows:

Spoiler :
There are reports today that the distant nation of Vedria has lifted its ban on coffee.

Before the Fall the ancient Kingdom of Sweden had made many attempts at banning the product over the past century, alternating with periods of heavy taxation. Attempts at prohibition continued even after the country's rebirth into modern Vedria because it was believed the beverage posed a public health risk.

Although official sources refuted it, a number of independent investigations had revealed the amount of coffee consumed in the nation of Vedria had not decreased despite the ban and that the coffee prohibition had in fact led to an increase in criminal activity as Vedrian citizens turned to criminal organisations to smuggle coffee into the country.

Vedrian government officials have not commented on the overturning of the most recent ban attempt but observers believe the government simply decided to stop fighting a battle they were losing and instead capitulated to the will of the people.



Today's edition of the Haven Herald also contained the following article:

Pacific Party's Pacating Progenitor: an interview with Senator Gurra
by Harland Godwin

It here follows:

Spoiler :
There was one minister whom I had not yet met in person and whom I longed to interview. He would be the jewel in my journalistic crown, as far as I was concerned, if ever I could get him to agree to an interview. The founder of the Pulias People's Party, the first Prime Minister of Pulias and current government minister: Senator the Honourable Gustavus Gurra.

First impressions are important, and I knew I had irreparably ruined mine: during my now-famous interview with Senator Melda I referred to Senator Gurra by implication as a member of the upper class. This is not correct and he took great offence. Senator Melda had personally berated me over the mistake. So I was very surprised indeed when Senator Gurra accepted my request for an interview.

We met at the Pulias People's Party headquarters in Pulias City. The venue seemed appropriate for a party claiming to be 'of the people, for the people, by the people' because it was very basic: a conference hall, a small office and a cafeteria. We met in the latter. I was expecting something more opulent, to be honest, but this was my first indication that perhaps the Pulias People's Party was a genuine 'for the people' kind of party after all.


H. Godwin: Greetings, Minister. Before we begin, please let me express my genuine apology for any offence caused by the incorrect information published in the Herald when I interviewed Senator Melda. He contacted me after the interview ran and expressed his and your extreme displeasure. It was entirely my fault for not researching more thoroughly, and a mistake like that will not happen again. I hope you will accept my sincere apology so we can put it behind us.

G. Gurra: That was an unfortunate mistake; there is no need to drag it any further. It is nice to finally meet you, Mister Godwin.

H.G.: And you, too, Minister: I've wanted to meet you for quite some time.

G.G.: I'm pleased that the feeling is mutual.

H.G.: Indeed it is. Now I know you've been back for some months now already, but welcome back to the nation. And congratulations for your election to the Senate.

G.G.: Thank you! As a self-proclaimed citizen of the world I feel at home wherever the wind takes me, but Pulias is and will always be my first home. It is an honor to get to serve the people of Pulias once again as their Senator.

H.G.: Can you tell me about your travels? You were gone from Pulian society for ten years. What is the wider world beyond our borders like? Have other nations recovered from the Fall as well as ours?

G.G.: There isn't that big a difference between life in Pulias and life outside actually. I lived in Eruch for a year, where I did some work at an orphanage nearby the tiny apartment I was able to rent, and it is a very beautiful city but also a very divided one. I saw many children who came from awful conditions living on the street, and while we might not have that particular situation here in Pulias we do have similar problems. Poverty and inequality torments our world and that is why I do the work that I do with the Pulias People's Party. We can't pride ourselves on being better in any way because that just isn't true. Wherever I have been, may it be Pulias, Eruch or Hong Kong, the ghosts of our past still live on.

H.G.: That's very interesting to hear. If I may ask about your party, it recently updated its organisational structure, replacing the 'Leader' title with a party president and secretary. Can you tell me more about this and why it was done?

G.G.: Well, our party has the aim to be as flat an organization as we can possibly be, so that our organization is a movement of the people and not just a select few. That is why we wanted to divide the senatorial and organisational duties of the leader into two separate roles: the President and the Secretary of the Party.

H.G.: I see. From an outside perspective it looks an awful lot like self-aggrandisement: giving yourselves special titles.

G.G.: I don't see how it is self-aggrandisement to divide duties of co-ordinating our party more equally.

H.G.: So instead of an increase in duties within the party it's a decrease of Senator Melda's. Do these changes speak to hidden internal party instability? Did Senator Melda need to cede some of his power to you for some reason?

G.G.: Senator Melda is a firm believer in our flat party organisation and the old role of a Leader has always been mostly a representative one anyway. There was no personal reasoning behind this, but rather an idea to abandon any hierarchical party structure that was hanging around.

H.G.: I see. In that case, tell me more about your thoughts on the Deputy Prime Minister. As founder of the Pulias People's Party, how do you think the party has been run under his leadership? Or 'presidency', I suppose?

G.G.: Comrade Melda has done an excellent job representing our party this year, that's all I can say. Thanks to his work and self-sacrifice the party has been able to, and will continue to, accomplish many good things.

H.G.: Do you hold any concerns about his temperament? There are some in the community who believe his abrasive style makes his professed pacific tendencies less believable or authentic.

G.G.: No, I don't. The Pulias People's Party works towards making this world a place of peace and justice, and we have the right to be angry about its current state. We need to stand up for what we believe in, in what is right, because if we just sat down quietly we would let the people down. Our pacifism is the idea that peace will prevail, but this world we live in is not at peace. We condemn the use of military warfare, but we must attack the ideals of the old world to achieve true freedom.

H.G.: As the former Prime Minister, the first Prime Minister of modern Pulias, in fact, were you surprised in the recent election to be upstaged by Senator Bazil of the Pulian Imperial Party? Are you concerned that a political novice received more votes that you?

G.G.: I am concerned that such a large number of voters have been lured in by the imperialist agenda, whose representatives might use fancy words of equality and freedom but in the end only work to serve themselves and their hunger for power. Whether or not he has held a seat before I couldn't care less about: when I was elected Prime Minister I too was a "political novice."

H.G.: Well, on that subject, do you have any comment on the rise of jingoistic parties like the Pulian Imperial Party, and before that the now-defunct National Expansion Party?

G.G.: It is deplorable but not at all surprising. This world has been ruled by jingoistic propaganda throughout history and it takes time to change old views. Ideas of wars having a just cause are of course common, how else could the absolute governments of the old days justify sending their own people out to die on the battlefield? But we must realise that we, the people of the world, all hail from the same beginnings — we are all the same and killing each other will never change the world for the better.

H.G.: Speaking of changing the world, some political commentators have expressed concern that the new government looks to be using the Senate as a rubber stamp for their executive decisions, instead of allowing the Senate its proper role in reviewing and debating legislation. More specifically, they point to the example of the recently-passed Ministerial Reform Act 1822, and that the Deputy Prime Minister steamrolled the Senate by pushing the bill through without allowing any debate or amendments to be considered. What do you say to that?

G.G.: We in the Cabinet find this situation unfortunate, and that is why Senator Melda has opened debate on the matter of the Ministerial Reform Amendment Act 1822 that was proposed by Senator Augustus of the Pulian Imperial Party. Currently, the constitution of Pulias doesn't express in much detail how the work in the Senate is to be done and we in the Cabinet currently seek to find a solution to make the Senate a more democratic legislative assembly.

H.G.: Now that you've been reelected to the Senate, do you hold any aspirations for the party presidency?

G.G.: If the members of our party decide that they have that confidence in me in the future, I would of course accept, but I do not hold any aspirations as for what my future in the party will be like. My one and only aspiration is to do the best job I can for the people of Pulias.

H.G.: Do you have any plans to become Prime Minister again anytime in the future?

G.G.: I have no such plans. If the people's will is for me to represent them as their head of government, I would be more than happy to do so. That matter is not up to me to ultimately decide.

H.G.: As Prime Minister in the interim government you worked with the Pulian Advancement Union. Can you tell me if you've noticed any differences between working with them then and now in the current coalition government?

G.G.: The Pulian Advancement Union have done good work in Pulias, and we are happy they too seem to value progress and peace as much as we do. I haven't perceived any differences in working with them now as compared to working with them in the past.

H.G.: The Deputy Prime Minister recently held a town hall meeting in Haven of Peace to engage with the voters. What are your thoughts on that?

G.G.: As Senators we are the people's representatives and it is our job to ultimately do what they need us to do. The Town Hall meeting is a great example on how we in the Pulias People's Party work to engage with the people themselves so that our movement is one of the people. For example, my office here at the party headquarters is always open for voters to come in and talk to me about any current issues or other matters when I'm here.

H.G.: Having such an open door policy must come at a price. As the former Prime Minister, you must be accustomed to living in the spotlight. Can you tell me how your family has handled your political career?

G.G.: Well, I don't have much of a family actually, except for my daughter that is. But she is a tough bird and seems to have no problems with me being the public person that I am.

H.G.: Thank you very much for meeting with me today.

G.G.: Thanks to you too. Do you know your way out? This building can be a little hard to navigate sometimes . . .
 
It seems like I must have been switching accents during my interview with Mr. Godwin, given that I in one sentence apparently called the PPP an organization, and then in the next an organisation. :D
 
((If you are to fix it up you should probably change the one organization to organisation though, since the 's' has been used throughout the rest of the interview/article.))
 
((You used 'honor' so I thought you were using an Americanised spelling standard, so I made sure all of your dialogue was in American English. Is this not correct?

With the different dialects I figure as long as each character uses their own dialect consistently (not switching and changing between dialects) then it doesn't matter if different characters use different dialects (e.g. my Australian English). We can chalk it up to accent. ;)))
 
((Oh, right. I'm not a native speaker so I often end up mixing British and American spelling without even thinking about it. :p I guess you saw that when I used organization and organisation in the same sentence... :rolleyes:))
 
((Haha, it's no problem. I just assumed you had learnt the American version and 'corrected' the British version to American accordingly. It's easy to get mixed up since both the 's' and 'z' are pronounced /z/ in those cases.))
 
I vote in favor of Senator Melda's amendment to the amendment. :crazyeye:
 
I approve of Senator Melda' s changes.

((Cpm if I made a rp bill that provided free education in exchange for signing up for a draft could it increase jingoism like in Victoria 2.
 
I approve of Senator Melda' s changes.

((Cpm if I made a rp bill that provided free education in exchange for signing up for a draft could it increase jingoism like in Victoria 2.

Interesting idea. Give it a try, perhaps.

I vote in favor of Senator Melda's amendment to the amendment. :crazyeye:

Having trouble following what's going on? Me too.
 
In that case I guess we can conclude the debate and start voting? Since both the government and the opposition seem to agree.

I vote in favor of Senator Melda's amendments.

((Cpm if I made a rp bill that provided free education in exchange for signing up for a draft could it increase jingoism like in Victoria 2.

((How would this work within the frame of Civilization V? Seems to me like it wouldn't have any reasonable gameplay effects because what would constitute this free education in-game? It wouldn't make sense to just generate jingoism/pacifism out of thin air.))
 
I vote in favor of Senator Melda's amendment as well.

((Eh, let him. We'll just make a RP Ministry of Education and have the schoolbooks show how jingoism is bad and how supporters of it should feel bad. :p))
 
To combat the growing inequality in our society before it grows rampant, I would like to introduce for debate the "Military Academy" bill.

The Commission for Military Education and Conscription:

Section A: Any and all adult males without mental or physical defects can apply to receive a free education at designated academies throughout the country. Upon entrance into these academies all individuals accept that they will be entered into the draft list and can be called upon at any time.

As you can see, this bill will help to combat the growing unemployment and low education rates in our country while strengthening our military with educated individuals so that we can in the short term, eliminate the Luddite threat and in the long term pursue alliances with neighboring powers.
 
I vote 'aye' on my amendment to Senator Augustus's bill, too, although that was probably taken for granted.


So the voting for the amendment I moved to the Opposition's Ministerial Reform Amendment Act 1822 closes after one day of voting.

The amendment passes in the affirmative and the bill is therefore amended.

The vote tally is below:

Ayes | Noes | Abstains
Heerlo (PAU)|none|Albert Bazil (PIP)
Augustus (PIP)||Edwin Zachariah (Ind)
Gustavus Gurra (PPP)||
Ernest Barnard (PAU)||
William Melda (PPP)||


The Ministerial Reform Amendment Act 1822 bill text is therefore amended to read as follows.

This bill seeks to amend the Ministerial Reform Act 1822 by inserting the following clause:

  • No person may simultaneously hold more than three ministerial portfolios.


I therefore move that the bill be read for a second time ((i.e. we vote on the final bill as a whole to pass it into law)).

This vote will close within 48 hours and will only be considered valid if at least four Senators vote on it. However if a majority vote one way or the other is achieved and no further votes will impact the result the vote can close as soon as possible. A simple majority either way will determine the bill's fate. A tie will mean the Ministerial Reform Amendment Act 1822 bill is defeated.

I vote 'aye'. ((I expect this to easily pass since my amendment had tripartisan support but we need to pass the bill formally into law. So if you voted 'aye' for the amendment and want the bill to pass just vote 'aye' again . . . maybe make it clear that this is what you're voting for, because the Honourable Opposition Leader has moved another bill on the floor. :p))


Having trouble following what's going on? Me too.

((It's clear as mud:

  1. The Government passed a bill which passed without any amendments.
  2. The Opposition tried to make an amendment to a bill which was no longer a bill but which was now an existing law. I explained this technically wasn't possible so instead I've clarified that the Opposition has proposed a brand new bill which seeks to modify an existing law (which is possible).
  3. I moved an amendment to his bill which has now passed.
  4. We can now vote on the final text of the bill which reflects the amendments I made to it to pass it into law.
  5. ???
  6. Profit.

On the other hand I think it's really messy to have multiple bills running at the same time but if everyone's happy with doing so we can deal with the Opposition Leader's bill now as well.

Once this ministerial reform amendment bill is passed I have a Senate voting codification bill to pass and, maybe, the Government might be ready to introduce Orders. Still need to clarify one more thing first, though, which could be ready by the time this current vote is done.))
 
Top Bottom