Realpolitik of the Smoky Skies - The Reboot

Et_Absoluti said:

((Are the Prime Minister and I political enemies? Maybe ideological, but I have voted for him every time))

Click to expand...

And I appreciate that, my friend.

While we may have some ideological differences, still, we are both working toward the same goal: a better Pulias. We are the servants of the people, and each of our parties' differing views help ensure that neither of our extremes are stretched too far.

I am honored to work with you, Senator Augustus.

Hear, hear.

((And just on the roleplaying front, I imagine the Senate isn't in session all year round --- obviously it's in session whenever we want to do stuff --- but is probably in session four to six times a year for about half the year. So roleplaying-wise, we're probably going back to our constituents several times per year.

Story-wise, my character doesn't bring his wife or child with him to the capital when the Senate is in session because he considers the trails to be far too dangerous. Presumably the railway will make it much safer.

Anyway, this was my brainwave for the day. ))

((It's always bugged me that there wasn't a proper read on what the actual population of the cities were. But then I realised this thread exists!

From that we can determine that Coventry is currently between 48 000 and 90 000 (will reach the latter in two years), Haven of Peace is currently between 90 000 and 150 000 (will reach the latter in five years) and Pulias City is currently between 337 000 and 469 000 (will reach the latter in one year).

As for the total national population, I don't have a clue --- not sure whether the game just tallies those together (which seems strange because I would imagine most of the population does not live in the urban centres) or if it has a more sophisticated way of working that out. If this weren't a custom scenario you'd be able to look up the total population in the victory screens but I'm not sure that's the case in Smoky Skies. cpm?

Anyway, I just thought it was interesting and that I'd share. ))

))

((Expect a pm from me either later today or tomorrow, US central time))

OOC: shouldn't the first posts be updated with the latest information? I mean, there is no current government defined and there is only a mention to the first one, and we're on the third already, at least that could be updated too, even if to point to Melda's post with the correct information.

MiguelBazil said:

OOC: shouldn't the first posts be updated with the latest information? I mean, there is no current government defined and there is only a mention to the first one, and we're on the third already, at least that could be updated too, even if to point to Melda's post with the correct information.

Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'll be getting to that shortly! I have a couple things I have to do earlier today but this evening is set aside for maintenance - upgrading the OP, playing turns, etc. If anyone else wants to upgrade their party's platforms, send me a PM.

OOC: thanks, just thought I'd mention it since we're doing so many new things, and if you're having a hard time keeping things in line and up to date, Melda is doing a good job for support information

MiguelBazil said:

OOC: thanks, just thought I'd mention it since we're doing so many new things, and if you're having a hard time keeping things in line and up to date, Melda is doing a good job for support information

Click to expand...

No worries; just wanted to let everyone know I'm not intentionally slacking off on GMing this!
I did want to mention, incidentally, that if anyone (i.e., Melda) was interested in forming the entirety of the ruleset into a more roleplay-like "Pulian Constitution", that'd be great.

MiguelBazil said:

Melda is doing a good job for support information

Click to expand...

((Thank you ))

cpm4001 said:

I did want to mention, incidentally, that if anyone (i.e., Melda) was interested in forming the entirety of the ruleset into a more roleplay-like "Pulian Constitution", that'd be great.

Click to expand...

((I'll take a look at it. No promises on timeframes, though. Whatever is drafted should try and match the sections and subsections quoted in legislation, though, so that it all lines up.

I'll check it out. ))

Turns played, update up by Sunday (family coming into town for a visit, so may not get it done tomorrow.)

cpm4001 said:

Turns played, update up by Sunday (family coming into town for a visit, so may not get it done tomorrow.)

Click to expand...

((Sounds good. While we're waiting I'll get some house-keeping done.))



As I'm sure all citizens of Pulias know, there exists linguistic confusion between the name of our nation and the name of our capital city. On a daily basis we navigate our ways around the confusion between these two different meanings, and often from context we can infer the correct meaning. But it is a source of confusion nonetheless which I know couriers loathe. Some people have taken to referring to our great capital as Pulias City, and this is a convention the Government would like to suggest the Senate consider adopting as the legal name for the city.

Some of you may have other suggestions, and this would therefore be the time to propose them. In the debating period of this bill, if you have any suggestions for alternative names instead of the Government's default option of Pulias City, please propose them as amendments to the bill. Once the debating period expires we will have up to two days to vote on which of the names we would prefer be listed in the final bill, and then up to two days after that in which to vote on the bill in its entirety ((refer to the bills proposals, etc. link in my signature if unsure)).

I therefore commend the bill to the chamber, and I move that the bill be heard for the first time.

Pulias City Naming Act 1822 - Long Title

An Act to alter the name of the city of Pulias​

Section 1: Short title

This Act may be cited as the Pulias City Naming Act 1822.​

Section 2: Commencement

(1) All sections shall come into operation on the day on which this Act passes the Senate in the positive.​

Section 3: Overview

(1) This act is intended to rename the capital of the nation of Pulias, the city of Pulias to that of Pulias City in order to reduce confusion between the great city and our great nation.​

Section 4: Naming

(1) The name of the city of "Pulias" is hereby altered to the name of "Pulias City".​

Click to expand...

Time left for debate: [timer=06/07/2015 4:41 AM UTC;Expired][/timer]



Senator the Honourable William Melda
Acting Prime Minister of Pulias
Minister of Culture
President of the Pulias People's Party
Senator for Haven of Peace

I support the idea to change the city name to something more specific, in order to clear all the confusion. However, I'd like to go a step further, and make a stronger change. Instead of simply adding city to the name, why not rename it to something similar, yet different?

Simple suggestion: Puliana. Maintains the spirit of Pulias, yet differentiates. I'd like to hear more ideas of course.

There are two days remaining for the debating period of the current bill. Despite commending the Government's bill to the chamber I don't myself personally have a preference as to what we name the capital, just as long as it is renamed from its current name. Therefore I have nothing further to contribute to this matter until we reach the voting period.




However I would like to advise His Majesty and the Senate that there has been a slight reshuffle in the Second Heerlo Ministry. The Honourable Howard Stephenson is no longer able to carry out his duties as Minister of Defence and Science, so these portfolios have been reallocated to other ministers.

Here is what the first configuration of the Second Heerlo Ministry looked like prior to the reshuffle:



The Prime Minister, Senator the Honourable Heerlo has gained the responsibilities of the Defence Ministry, and the Leader of the Pulian Advancement Union, Senator the Honourable Ernest Barnard has gained the responsibilities of the Science Ministry. The ministers will present to His Majesty to be sworn in at the earliest possible opportunity.

So after the reshuffle the second configuration of the Second Heerlo Ministry is as per below:



This new ministerial lineup is in accordance with the Ministerial Reform Act 1822. Any questions can be addressed to the Acting Prime Minister's Office here at Senate House.



Senator the Honourable William Melda
Acting Prime Minister of Pulias
Minister of Culture
President of the Pulias People's Party
Senator for Haven of Peace

Why is the government concentrating powers again in less people. If you have chosen the path of diluting ministries, why not assign another minister to the "Defence and Science" department?

Such a rash change from the logic presented when this division of powers was proposed... Why now, when there is another bill on the floor?

The Government is, as you put it, "concentrating powers" in fewer people because there are fewer people available for the Government to call upon. I swear we cannot win: first we were apparently a terrible government for giving a non-Senator a ministry, now we're terrible for taking it away.

This is not an ideal situation. Unfortunately Minister Stevenson is unable to perform his duties at this time. There were no other members of the Government to choose from. This is all in accordance with the Ministerial Reform Act 1822, and therefore in accordance with the law that this esteemed chamber deemed acceptable else the bill wouldn't have passed the Senate.

The Defence and Science ministries are very important portfolios, and instead of combining them into a super-ministry and super-department --- of the kind this Government has striven to avoid ever since taking office --- the Government has opted to divide it between two ministers, so as to avoid the accumulation of too much power in any one pair of hands.

Again, I am flabbergasted at the illogical priorities of this Opposition. You say now, and have said in the past, that you want to avoid concentrating power into fewer hands, yet if given the opportunity you would be combining ministries and departments to place these additional powers into fewer hands. What is it with you wanting to concentrate even more powers into the hands of one or two people? We have kept these ministries and departments separate because they are both very powerful, and sought to distribute them in the Ministry in a fair manner without giving any one minister too much power and responsibility, all in accordance with the Ministerial Reform Act 1822.

As for the timing, this notification was a courtesy, not a bill or motion to be debated or voted upon. I'm shocked that I even need to explain this to a fellow Senator of Pulias here in the Nineteenth Century, but the distribution of ministerial portfolios and responsibilities, as long as they are in accordance with the legislation already on the books, is an executive action that does not require Senate approval. The timing is not ideal, I'll grant, but would a Government led by your party deliberately leave ministerial posts vacant for days on end just because a bill is under consideration by the chamber? Bills are almost always going to be before the chamber, so in your ideal government all government business --- even those executive actions which the Senate has no authority over --- would grind to a halt on a near-permanent basis.

I thank the voters of Pulias that they have, in their wisdom, not returned a Pulian Imperial Party government. And I think with statements such as these by the Honourable Senator opposite, the voters will realise they have avoided a disastrous decision which would haunt them for an entire decade.

((The upcoming Harland Godwin article should be an interesting one, to say the least! ))

I know Melda has already said this in more detail but to sum it up: the government elected for this term of office is a PAU-PPP one and when we were elected we had 4 senators representing us in the government but 5 available party members, so the Prime Minister assigned PAU's non-Senatorial member to hold a fifth position.

But then, our fifth Cabinet member failed to show up for reasons I am not familiar with and therefore in the nation's best interest the Prime Minister reassigned his duties as to keep everything going.

((Out of character, this is all because of PortugalPower not having been to the forums since 7 April which is almost exactly 2 months ago now. I hope everything is well with them.))

When it comes to the city name debate, I prefer Pulias City. I don't think we in the Senate should make a habit of changing already named cities, and the intent of this bill should be only to formalise the fact that the city of Pulias is already called Pulias City by many Pulians.

This is not about "winning", and I don't understand what's the point in even going that way. I prefer things to be a bit more concentrated, and I am not against that, so I think you failed to see what I meant. Allow me to clarify: what I questioned is the government first dismissing the point in actually having things in fewer hands since they were logically linked, and now goes exactly in the direction they wanted to avoid.

I do applaud the fact that you decided not to simply give both ministries to one person, but it doesn't avoid my original point. You mention you have no more people, yet I see more senators around you. Are you deliberately avoiding having other people in the government supporting you simply because "they don't belong to our parties"? And even if you were to avoid the PIP for differences in some ideas, you do have another senator available ((the damn NPC har har, never thought he'd be so useful)). So I disagree with the "not enough senators" justification. But I won't press this matter any longer as it would serve no practical purpose.

As for the notification, I do not need you explaining that to me as I fully understand the point, and did so before you even mentioned it. What I do not understand is why do that while a bill is being discussed, I only questioned the timing. Like you said it yourself, it's an executive action that is according to the approved reform. So why not wait a bit? And even if it requires no discussion to pass, discussing said changes even for the pure information of all is not in the interest of the government?

What I find shocking is not your actions, as they are expected, but the sheer arrogance that you direct to the opposition. I've asked for nothing but discussion and clarification, yet you keep on using an aggressive discourse as "I'm shocked that I even need to explain this" or even "I thank the voters of Pulias that they have, in their wisdom, not returned a Pulian Imperial Party government", and "they have avoided a disastrous decision which would haunt them for an entire decade".

((Indeed, it should be nice to see. Also, I'd like to see more opinions on the city name

EDIT: I only saw Gurra's post now, I understand the PAU-PPP government, but still, it wouldn't be unseen to have someone from other parties in a government))

((I might rebut in-character later, but yeah, William was deliberately being a dick with that 'I can't believe I have to' statement, haha.

It's true we could call upon the crossbench Senator to serve as a minister, if he would agree to (and I know he wouldn't; it would threaten his independence / cpm has enough on his plate without having to fulltime roleplay a minister in his own scenario!).

As for Opposition Senators . . . I don't know of any parliamentary system in the world where a Government would call upon any Opposition members to serve as ministers. In presidential systems, like in the US you get cross-factional ministers --- or secretaries, as they're called there --- but it's not a parliamentary system where those Opposition members are part of the legislature and therefore betraying their party's numbers in the legislature.

There are occasions where an Opposition member will defect / betray the Opposition and join the Government --- there's a prime example in the state of South Australia at the moment, where a disgruntled member of the Opposition decided 'bollocks to this!', quit the party and gained a ministry in the ruling government because they needed a vote like his to prop up their parliamentary majority, despite the fact that mere months earlier he was part of the team trying to unseat the government at the election.

The only exception to those scenarios I can think of is in Germany, but that's a case where both of the main parties have been unable to secure enough votes with minor parties to form government and so the --- unprecedented, the first time they did it; they've now done it a second time --- grand alliance was formed, because the only possible configuration in the Bundestag where a stable majority could be formed is through the alliance of the two diametrically opposed parties. It's certainly not the norm, and doesn't really compare to the Pulian example because the PAU-PPP Coalition Government of Pulias already holds a majority in the chamber.

Anyway, any excuse to get my political nerd on. ))

Melda said:

any excuse to get my political nerd on.

Click to expand...

((Hehe, you never miss one. I've seen it happen once or twice here, but it's usually a cherry-picked member or something. Still, I know you guys would never take someone from outside, but that doesn't mean Albert can't take a stab with his "practical views" ))

((When was the government criticized for non-senator ministries? I though it had support besides the usual opposition grumbling due to precedent))