[DRAFT] Skeletons In The Cabinet

[Milintia]

First issue/draft ever, but I had this idea from Priti Patel in the UK government late last year. Thoughts?

TITLE:

Skeletons In The Cabinet

VALIDITY:

Must be a democracy

DESCRIPTION:

A scandal has erupted in your nation's press after it was discovered that a Cabinet Minister was conducting diplomacy without official knowledge or authorisation while on a holiday abroad.

OPTION ONE

"It was simply a holiday!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, your International Development minister, as @@HE@@ adjusts clearly expensive new sunshades. "And in fact, even if I had done as these allegations suggested, we still came out with better diplomatic relations! We should scrap the need to inform Foreign Office officials or seek authorisation when conducting diplomacy with other powers! Speaking of which, I've got a lucrative new trade deal for you, if you'd just sign below the dotted line here..."

Outcome: @@DEMONYM@@ government ministers often return from holidays with sudden changes to their political standpoints.


OPTION TWO

"This is a severe breach of government protocol," explains @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Private Secretary, reviewing his copy of the Ministerial Code, which has nearly-illegible notes written on it. "In light of the recent developments involving @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, it would be best to dismiss @@HIM_1@@ and appoint a new Minister for International Development. This does not, however, resolve the underlying issue which is that our Ministerial Code is too lenient - we must tighten restrictions so that NOTHING happens without going through the proper channels!"

Outcome: @@DEMONYM@@ government ministers must acquire Foreign Office permission to even be in the same room as foreign diplomats and leaders.


OPTION THREE

"We need to go one step further!" demands your Cabinet Secretary, @@RANDOMNAME@@, as @@HE@@ returns from a meeting with the Foreign Office Minister. "Politicians have often been found to be unreliable and subject to undue influence in situations such as this, but, with respect, @@LEADER@@, when was the last time you heard of a civil servant being unreliable or subject to influence? I suggest that we keep the politicians in Parliament, where their only concern is representing their constituents and getting re-elected, and only allow the Civil Service to act as Ministers for respective government departments. That way, whatever we do, it will always be in @@NAME@@'s long-term best interests."

Outcome: @@NAME@@'s government is managed by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

TITLE:

Skeletons In The Cabinet

VALIDITY:

Must be a democracy

DESCRIPTION:

A scandal has erupted in your nation's press after it was discovered that a Cabinet Minister was conducting diplomacy without official knowledge or authorisation while on a holiday abroad.

OPTION ONE

"It was simply a holiday!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, your International Development minister, as @@HE@@ grips papers from @@HIS@@ last trip abroad that you haven't seen before. "And in fact, even if I had, we still came out with better diplomatic relations! We should scrap the need to inform Foreign Office officials or seek authorisation when conducting diplomacy with other powers!"

Outcome: @@DEMONYM@@ government ministers often return from holidays with sudden changes to their political standpoints.


OPTION TWO

"This is a severe breach of government protocol," explains @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Private Secretary, reviewing the Ministerial Code. "In light of the recent developments involving @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, it would be best to dismiss @@HIM_1@@ and appoint a new Minister for International Development. This does not, however, resolve the underlying issue which is that our Ministerial Code is too lenient - we must tighten restrictions so that this does not happen again and we can get back to providing good government."

Outcome: @@DEMONYM@@ government ministers must acquire Foreign Office permission to even be in the same room as foreign diplomats and leaders.


OPTION THREE

"We need to go one step further!" demands your Cabinet Secretary, @@RANDOMNAME@@, as @@HE@@ returns from a meeting with the Foreign Office Minister. "Politicians have often been found to be unreliable and subject to undue influence in situations such as this, but, with respect, @@LEADER@@, when was the last time you heard of a civil servant being unreliable or subject to influence? I suggest that we keep the politicians in Parliament, and only allow the Civil Service to act as Ministers for respective government departments. That way, whatever we do, it will always be in @@NAME@@'s best interests."

Outcome: @@NAME@@'s government is managed by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.


OPTION FOUR

"You know, this would all be so simple if you just centralised power onto yourself." remarks your son-in-law as he watches the evening news at home, "You can't have a press scandal like this if you don't have any Ministers to overstep their portfolios. Abolish the Ministries and just run the entire government yourself. After all, that's what they elect you for, isn't it?"

Outcome: all government departments are now under the Ministry for Everything.

[Caracasus]

Okay, let's take a look. First off, thanks for formatting it like you have. Makes it nice and easy to see what you're doing here. In case you did not know, your second draft can be simply added to your first post - clearly indicating that it's the latest draft - usually with the first draft put in spoiler tags.

TITLE:

Skeletons In The Cabinet

VALIDITY:

Must be a democracy

Not bad. Not 100% sold on the title but that's not the end of the world. Certainly not a deal-breaker.

DESCRIPTION:

A scandal has erupted in your nation's press after it was discovered that a Cabinet Minister was conducting diplomacy without official knowledge or authorisation while on a holiday abroad.

The biggest rule for writing these descriptions is to show, not tell. You've simply told me what happens - how about you present this in a way that shows it?

An example:

Desc: Your nation's warships are out of date and need replacing. - Here I've just told you what the problem is. For an engaging issue, you want a hook - something that shows.

i.e. Desc: After the flagship of the @@NAME@@ fleet sank in shallow water, naval technicians and recovery teams have highlighted the age of the vessel as the cause. Admirals and other interested parties have petitioned you to do something about the state of the navy.

(obviously this is rough around the edges, but hopefully you get what I mean. Describe the issue to me, give me details about the deal etc.)

OPTION ONE

"It was simply a holiday!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, your International Development minister, as @@HE@@ grips papers from @@HIS@@ last trip abroad that you haven't seen before. "And in fact, even if I had, we still came out with better diplomatic relations! We should scrap the need to inform Foreign Office officials or seek authorisation when conducting diplomacy with other powers!"

Outcome: @@DEMONYM@@ government ministers often return from holidays with sudden changes to their political standpoints.

Lacking clarity a bit here. State what this character means clearly. Even if they had... what? As I stated in TWB, I also think this could use a reason to select it. Perhaps the trade deal would be beneficial? It also needs a bit of humour. Perhaps they could be sporting a suntan, or hiding travel agent brochures under a chair cushion?

OPTION TWO

"This is a severe breach of government protocol," explains @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Private Secretary, reviewing the Ministerial Code. "In light of the recent developments involving @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, it would be best to dismiss @@HIM_1@@ and appoint a new Minister for International Development. This does not, however, resolve the underlying issue which is that our Ministerial Code is too lenient - we must tighten restrictions so that this does not happen again and we can get back to providing good government."

Outcome: @@DEMONYM@@ government ministers must acquire Foreign Office permission to even be in the same room as foreign diplomats and leaders.

Okay, so here's our counterpart option. So far, so good - although could use humour. We'll look at the outcomes after your next draft, I'm sure.

OPTION THREE

"We need to go one step further!" demands your Cabinet Secretary, @@RANDOMNAME@@, as @@HE@@ returns from a meeting with the Foreign Office Minister. "Politicians have often been found to be unreliable and subject to undue influence in situations such as this, but, with respect, @@LEADER@@, when was the last time you heard of a civil servant being unreliable or subject to influence? I suggest that we keep the politicians in Parliament, and only allow the Civil Service to act as Ministers for respective government departments. That way, whatever we do, it will always be in @@NAME@@'s best interests."

Outcome: @@NAME@@'s government is managed by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

So fair enough... though the argument made needs to be more convincing. I'd suggest tweaking it so this speaker argues that civil servants, being in position for decades at a time, are in a far better position to make these calls than politicians, who tend to think in the short term and may be kicked out by next election.

Not sold on the 4th option. I'm really not sure you need it to be honest.

[Milintia]

Okay, let's take a look. First off, thanks for formatting it like you have. Makes it nice and easy to see what you're doing here. In case you did not know, your second draft can be simply added to your first post - clearly indicating that it's the latest draft - usually with the first draft put in spoiler tags.

TITLE:

Skeletons In The Cabinet

VALIDITY:

Must be a democracy

Not bad. Not 100% sold on the title but that's not the end of the world. Certainly not a deal-breaker.

DESCRIPTION:

A scandal has erupted in your nation's press after it was discovered that a Cabinet Minister was conducting diplomacy without official knowledge or authorisation while on a holiday abroad.

The biggest rule for writing these descriptions is to show, not tell. You've simply told me what happens - how about you present this in a way that shows it?

An example:

Desc: Your nation's warships are out of date and need replacing. - Here I've just told you what the problem is. For an engaging issue, you want a hook - something that shows.

i.e. Desc: After the flagship of the @@NAME@@ fleet sank in shallow water, naval technicians and recovery teams have highlighted the age of the vessel as the cause. Admirals and other interested parties have petitioned you to do something about the state of the navy.

(obviously this is rough around the edges, but hopefully you get what I mean. Describe the issue to me, give me details about the deal etc.)

Will think about changing this after options and outcomes are done, thanks.

OPTION ONE

"It was simply a holiday!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, your International Development minister, as @@HE@@ grips papers from @@HIS@@ last trip abroad that you haven't seen before. "And in fact, even if I had, we still came out with better diplomatic relations! We should scrap the need to inform Foreign Office officials or seek authorisation when conducting diplomacy with other powers!"

Outcome: @@DEMONYM@@ government ministers often return from holidays with sudden changes to their political standpoints.

Lacking clarity a bit here. State what this character means clearly. Even if they had... what? As I stated in TWB, I also think this could use a reason to select it. Perhaps the trade deal would be beneficial? It also needs a bit of humour. Perhaps they could be sporting a suntan, or hiding travel agent brochures under a chair cushion?

OPTION TWO

"This is a severe breach of government protocol," explains @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Private Secretary, reviewing the Ministerial Code. "In light of the recent developments involving @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, it would be best to dismiss @@HIM_1@@ and appoint a new Minister for International Development. This does not, however, resolve the underlying issue which is that our Ministerial Code is too lenient - we must tighten restrictions so that this does not happen again and we can get back to providing good government."

Outcome: @@DEMONYM@@ government ministers must acquire Foreign Office permission to even be in the same room as foreign diplomats and leaders.

Okay, so here's our counterpart option. So far, so good - although could use humour. We'll look at the outcomes after your next draft, I'm sure.

OPTION THREE

"We need to go one step further!" demands your Cabinet Secretary, @@RANDOMNAME@@, as @@HE@@ returns from a meeting with the Foreign Office Minister. "Politicians have often been found to be unreliable and subject to undue influence in situations such as this, but, with respect, @@LEADER@@, when was the last time you heard of a civil servant being unreliable or subject to influence? I suggest that we keep the politicians in Parliament, and only allow the Civil Service to act as Ministers for respective government departments. That way, whatever we do, it will always be in @@NAME@@'s best interests."

Outcome: @@NAME@@'s government is managed by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

So fair enough... though the argument made needs to be more convincing. I'd suggest tweaking it so this speaker argues that civil servants, being in position for decades at a time, are in a far better position to make these calls than politicians, who tend to think in the short term and may be kicked out by next election.

Will apply feedback here, thanks.

Not sold on the 4th option. I'm really not sure you need it to be honest.

Agreed, I was hoping that it could be improved, but I'll get rid of it as I wasn't entirely sold on it either.

[Milintia]

Draft 2 up. How's it looking?

[Australian rePublic]

Hello. Not a bad little issue you got here. Now let's take a look:
You need to explain why exactly this is a bad thing. I mean if Ambassadors can play diplomacy, why can't high ranking party members?

[Milintia]

Hello. Not a bad little issue you got here. Now let's take a look:
You need to explain why exactly this is a bad thing. I mean if Ambassadors can play diplomacy, why can't high ranking party members?

I would think that would be self explanatory? It's being done without government knowledge or authorisation - that is, you're not even aware it's happening. That being said, if you do feel that it's not a bad thing, that's why option 1 exists, no?

I'm asking because, to pull a random issue, issue 220 doesn't explain why voter apathy is a bad thing - surely it's a sign of a democracy that's happy with the status quo, after all!