Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Government
#1
Towards the end of the round we moved to a big departments - more junior ministers model. Do we prefer that, or prefer to leave it at the PM's discretion on how he organises his cabinet? Any other thought on that?
Steve
Acting Acting Head Av | Parliament | Prime Minister's Office | Cabinet Office | Treasury
Reply
Thanks given by:
#2
I think a minimum activity requirement for the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet should be implemented. Labour had a real problem with deputy leaders being elected then immediately going on indefinite sabbatical so giving them a week (or other amount of time) written into the rules before resigning them from the role would help to a degree I feel.

Besides that I think we should have big Governments with NPCs filling gaps, if purely from a flavour/scenery point of view. Having a Minister for Public Services which covers a half dozen portfolios is fine OOC but if we had a Tory Government we could have Dylan Macmillan: SoS for Education alongside Jeremy Hunt: SoS for Health, etc. Would also help reduce the mental gymnastics required to justify the entire political elite evaporating into nothingness once every round starts
REBECCA FLAIR

LIB DEM MP FOR MONTGOMERYSHIRE
______
'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded. - Friedrich Hayek
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Milton Friedman
______

Mac the Great and Powerful
Reply
Thanks given by:
#3
We cannot sustain a permanently large government bench. We simply don't have the player community for it anymore. I think it should be flexible to the interests and capacity of players, with the minimum of PM, FCO, Home, and Chancellor each named and played by a different player. I really liked the re-introduction of junior ministers as a way for players to work their way into familiarity with how the game works without having to be thrown into the deep end. There can be such an extraordinary learning curve to this game that, especially in government, you're either backbencher or you are SUPER VITAL AND ESSENTIAL to its maintenance.

I'm not opposed to NPCs, but I'd want to hear more about how that idea would be structured before I'd support it. Key concerns of mine: who would get the political credit for work done in the NPC's name, and who would get the brunt of the burn when they screw up?
Dame Beatrice Oona Millar DBE MP FRSE RSA | Labour
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1992- )
Member of Parliament for Glasgow Hillhead (1987- )
Member of Parliament for Edinburgh Leith (1957-1959)

Formerly: Parminder Chawla, Joshua Bertram, Lillian Nichols, Gareth Edwards, Andrew Pearson, L Chris Havilland, Mack Aldritt
Reply
Thanks given by:
#4
I agree that we should have the Great Offices as actual cabinet roles and then allow PMs and LoOs to create their own junior ministerial portfolios as they see fit. So, for example, if a PM were very keen on, say, constitutional reform, they could appoint a Junior Minister of Constitutional Affairs to work under the Home Secretary in an ad hoc type of way. The opposition could, or could choose not to, then appoint a shadow minister for that role. Fewer "mandatory" roles and more options for customization seems to be the way to go here.
[Image: VO5PA6L.png]
R I C H A R D • D E • V I L L I E R S
C O N S E R V A T I V E
for
G R A N T H A M

Shadow SoS for Regions, Nations, & Devolution | Constitutional Affairs

CORNERSTONE GROUP
Reply
Thanks given by:
#5
I'm not so sure about the junior minister idea as it eliminates some accountability that ministers face. I also agree with the idea of a flexible frontbench (at the SoS level), where PM, FCO, Chancellor, and Home have to be filled and with other positions that can exist based on the needs of the government/size of the player base at a given moment (mostly thinking of an SoS Public Services and a John Prescott-esque SoS Environment/Transport/Regions/Local Gov). That would mean six frontbench positions that can be filled plus junior ministers that can be created on an ad hoc basis to introduce people to government (and importantly, don't require shadows) - which I think may be feasible given the player base. In general a system in place where there's an agreement between the admins/PM/Leader of the Opposition regarding how many departments will exist that can be adjusted as the round progresses would be good so that one party doesn't end up feeling too stretched to match the frontbench of the other.

Also, I remember a time (potentially a long time ago), when the Whitehall forums were sorted based on broad issue areas, so for example Treasury, Trade & Industry, Work & Pensions, and everyone else associated with the economy had one forum that they all shared. I'm not sure how Whitehall is set up now, but if things are organized in a more issue area specific way rather than a strict department-specific way it could (artificially) create more flexibility in frontbench structure since admins don't have to be bothered about creating forums.
The Hon Lady Eleanor Grosvenor MP
Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
MP for Sevenoaks | Conservative Party
Reply
Thanks given by:
#6
I think having big departments in player hands is the best thing, we should recognise that we don't have the player base to sustain all-player massive cabinets, but we should let the PM shape it as much as possible with A-Team approval. I also like the idea of NPC's/having some backbenchers be the NPC's if their characters just aren't compatible with the leadership of their party or they just don't want to participate as that character in the front bench. But there is trouble with who gets the credit/blame, perhaps this could be linked to some kind of influence system (more of a thing for the 'Achievement' thread) where the PC can reap a reduced benefit/sanction from the action of their NPC counterpart?
Thomas Joseph Lowe | MP for Mansfield (1979-Present)

"We are not just here to manage capitalism but to change society and to define its finer values." - Tony Benn
Reply
Thanks given by: Terry Roberts (Unmasked)
#7
(06-09-2018, 08:46 PM)Rebecca Flair Wrote: I think a minimum activity requirement for the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet should be implemented. Labour had a real problem with deputy leaders being elected then immediately going on indefinite sabbatical so giving them a week (or other amount of time) written into the rules before resigning them from the role would help to a degree I feel.

Besides that I think we should have big Governments with NPCs filling gaps, if purely from a flavour/scenery point of view. Having a Minister for Public Services which covers a half dozen portfolios is fine OOC but if we had a Tory Government we could have Dylan Macmillan: SoS for Education alongside Jeremy Hunt: SoS for Health, etc. Would also help reduce the mental gymnastics required to justify the entire political elite evaporating into nothingness once every round starts
Never having been a fan of the superdepartments, I agree with Mac. By the way, I still don't see why double-jobbing went out of style. It's like a more flexible version of megadepartments where instead of having to group them all thematically, you give each player two or maybe in some cases three of them.

Once the accountability issue is fixed, maybe NPCs could work in that setup as well. I'd actually suggest that if you are going to do it, the party gets credit for the NPC actions but not the player. This means that as a player, if you want to move up, you have to commit to a department. We should probably not encourage the idea of people developing secondary characters, that seems to be stretching things a bit.
the Rt Hon. Angus "Gus" Quigley MP | Conservative MP for Crosby (1992-present)
Opposition Chief Whip (2000-) and Shadow Infrastructure and Transport Secretary (2000-)
Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1999-2000)

"Get Netflix at the PM's Office."
- Sybrand Buma, when asked what his first act as Prime Minister of the Netherlands would be.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#8
I think the Cabinet set up should be up to the PM themselves, based on activity. I also think a suspension of disbelief is needed - if the opposition can't quite fill the same roles, we just don't attack it. If one player is having two or three roles as their character we just don't mention it.
MP For Hexham 1987 -
Reply
Thanks given by:
#9
(09-16-2018, 03:44 PM)Gus Quigley Wrote:
(06-09-2018, 08:46 PM)Rebecca Flair Wrote: I think a minimum activity requirement for the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet should be implemented. Labour had a real problem with deputy leaders being elected then immediately going on indefinite sabbatical so giving them a week (or other amount of time) written into the rules before resigning them from the role would help to a degree I feel.

Besides that I think we should have big Governments with NPCs filling gaps, if purely from a flavour/scenery point of view. Having a Minister for Public Services which covers a half dozen portfolios is fine OOC but if we had a Tory Government we could have Dylan Macmillan: SoS for Education alongside Jeremy Hunt: SoS for Health, etc. Would also help reduce the mental gymnastics required to justify the entire political elite evaporating into nothingness once every round starts
Never having been a fan of the superdepartments, I agree with Mac. By the way, I still don't see why double-jobbing went out of style. It's like a more flexible version of megadepartments where instead of having to group them all thematically, you give each player two or maybe in some cases three of them.

Once the accountability issue is fixed, maybe NPCs could work in that setup as well. I'd actually suggest that if you are going to do it, the party gets credit for the NPC actions but not the player. This means that as a player, if you want to move up, you have to commit to a department. We should probably not encourage the idea of people developing secondary characters, that seems to be stretching things a bit.


I'm on board with what Gus has said here: bring back double duties and get rid of mega-departments. It is far more flexible and works well, I think.
[Image: VO5PA6L.png]
R I C H A R D • D E • V I L L I E R S
C O N S E R V A T I V E
for
G R A N T H A M

Shadow SoS for Regions, Nations, & Devolution | Constitutional Affairs

CORNERSTONE GROUP
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)