Campaign Outline #1 - Back to the Basics
•
by Dishmcds
This is a basic outline of my campaign platforms for the upcoming General Elections. I've always felt like a prompt person, and I always try to make my intentions known early on.
We eLive in uncertain times. There have been plenty of schemes, plans, and committees that have started over the last three months with good intentions, and that could be somewhat successful if carried out properly. What we lack, however, is basic structure. I am not going to promise a complex economic theory or strategy or plans or committees or groups or structure. What I will promise, however, is a strong leader. One who already knows the basic outline of how it's done, and isnt afraid to speak up. I'm not afraid of criticism, and face it head on, most times on a daily basis. I'm vocal, outspoken, and stand behind any decision made for the benefit of my country, whether it be popular or unpopular.
Basically speaking, I will not waiver or conform based on public opinion. If it's for the best, then it's for the best.
Organizational Structure
If you look at the current UK Governmental structure, you'll find about 30 people handling way too much responsibility. From our Honours Committee to the War council to the British Academy (thanks Squiddy) to Unions to Social Responsibility Contract to the Workers Scheme, there's about 10 different things handled primarily by a small group of people. I personally feel that this is a problem. As of now, there's really no checks and balances system in place to make sure a Minister or Department is actually doing what they say, and in order to ensure the following things get done I will:
-Institute weekly meetings for the "cabinet". Each week an outline will be made up for all departments, and passed out via email. If those are unable to attend for whatever reason, like any "job", I'd expect a reply stating a reason (even if it's vague like "RL" or personal), and thoughts regarding the particular department that is not going to attend.
-Institute "minimal requirements" for each Department based on goals that will be set in private meetings with myself and the Minister for that Department. If, for example, our Foreign Affairs goals are to establish good relations with X country, I'd expect a report (done weekly) on status of those relations. This is to ensure that guidelines are being followed.
-Institute a pay system for Gov't employees. I personally feel that the amount of work asked of people (take the position we all used to call Mayor, for example) is a large workload, and people may not want to do it based on not really earning anything for it. A small wage for each department, which can be made up very easily (I have a proposal in Commons at the moment that would take less than 1% of our Food Income Tax to pay). This is to promote involvement in our Gov't, teach, train, and familiarize people with the way the Gov't operates, and ensure that the workloads of individuals dont get too large, simply out of necessity or lack of involvement.
Economic Outline
It's no secret I'm a free market advocate. As I've already said, people are and should be able to choose their own paths, make their own successes, as well as their own failures. We are here to ensure the market availability and profitability of companies in the UK, but if they choose to make poor business decisions, then ultimately the fault lies with the GM.
Once again, we are in basic times. For all the schemes and plans that lie around, proposed and trying to make people feel good about what they could bring, the bottom line is the applicability to those schemes. Things that take time and effort to organize and complete cannot be implemented in such an early stage of V1. We've spent a year in our economy with 6 industries, upgrading them, improving their ability to produce goods.
Now, they've changed the productivity formula and added 6 new industries that we've had to start from square one on. Each and every country has to endure this economic renaissance, and has to come up with ways to promote their raw materials to match the economic output of the 6 veteran industries. Raw Materials companies have suffered from the RM "gifts" the admins gave out, and since then we've suffered in producing various materials we dont naturally contain. We've sustained rather well in most industries, partly due to the plans laid out well before RM were ever released.
Frankly put, we don't need complex plans. We need basic management. We need to revert back to June and July when we were in upgrade and basic management mode of companies that existed to create opportunity for newer players to enter the market. If we do not, newer citizens will get bored and quit, and we'll create a vacuum.
That being said, there are companies that will be unable to sustain in various markets. Q1 food is basically useless in the new formula. Q1 weapons have minimal use, and outside of gifts Q1 is really only good for one thing: training.
We need to support, through free will, the movement from people in lower quality companies to higher quality ones.
Like I said, basic. Things we've done for months, we need to revert back to them.
In the upcoming campaign stop, I intend on stopping in Liverpool, the place of my residence to speak to people about my views on Military and Foreign Affairs. It can be rather lengthy, so it's best to keep this a minimum. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to post them here or PM them to me.
Thanks
Dishmcds
Minister of Trade
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Dish for president!
*almost shows e-boobs, but remembers there are kiddies watching.
"We need to revert back to June"
I agree with this comment. That Administration in June was pretty awesome no?
I'll comment further when I finish this essay tonight.
I will comment in about 30 hours after my two exams I have tomorrow. Sorry about the delay but these are my final exams of school.
"Institute weekly meetings for the "cabinet"."
I really can't see most of the cabinet being able to be online at the exact same time every week, particuarly when you consider how time consuming this would be to plan. Not sure its worth it tbh.
Organisation:
As I have said in the commons I'm not convinced that paying Ministers is the way to go. It can attract the wrong kind of person to the job. Though I would be interested in giving it a trial in some of the more tedious jobs.
On Cabinet meetings I don't see a need. As long as my Ministers are giving me a detailed report on my desk in the Cabinet forum I'll be fine with that. To make sure they are doing the job properly and effectively.
Economic:
I myself like to have some intervention in the economy. The Free Market usually fails at some point and to protect workers and consumers the Government needs to be ready to step in if needs must.
As the only candidate from the Top 3 parties to have 0 involvement in current companies. I feel I'm best equipped to take an unbiased look at our markets and decide if their needs to be intervention or not.
@Bob and F😨 I've always felt meetings to be necessary, in my opinion. An organised system and cabinet, to ensure that things are properly getting done. As I said, if a time cannot be reached, I expect feedback, but I've always preferred meetings. More brainstorming is usually attained through the use of live chat, rather than simple forum posting, and it takes far less time.
Meetings in live chat are good. Though the whole cabinet? I'd prefer to do it either one on one or if Ministries are interlinked (Like say Defence and Foreign Affairs during times of war.) together with that section of Government.
During my term as President I did this and things ran smoothly. Even if I was away Jasper would relay messages as would other Ministers like SBJ.
'Meetings in live chat are good. Though the whole cabinet? I'd prefer to do it either one on one or if Ministries are interlinked (Like say Defence and Foreign Affairs during times of war.) together with that section of Government.'
What FD said.
I don't see why the Minister of Minorities needs to brainstorm with the Minister of Defence for a plan in an upcoming war. That would just complicate things as we have quite a few ministers.
Perhaps seperate meetings with:
Defence/foreign affairs meetings: MoFA, MoD, their apprentices (if ministers want them there) and intelligence chief as well as pres.
Finance/Economy meeting: DoT, MoF, MoW and pres. Apprentices there if ministers want them'
Public relations/information: MoM, MoE and MoI. Apprentices there if ministers want them.
Sorry if I missed any ministries out I'm pretty damn tired.
But you'd be missing input if any is given. Take me, for instance. If I happen to be MoT, I've also been involved in Military. Why deny yourself the ability to have everyone have a say, making a Gov't that actually feels like it operates together, rather than a bunch of people doing as they please?
How would they be doing as they please by brainstorming at a meeting?
Any decisions would require presidential/congressional/war council approval.
By having people involved in the discussion who know what they're on about you simplify the decision making process and make decision quickly and efficiently.
Perhaps for these meetings ministers can invite any other ministers who they think may be useful in the discussion? I just don't see why all ministers should be involved in one huge meeting that's all.
Having a uniform and organized Gov't requires communication. If, for example the MoT and MoFA have a talk about things we're still going to be expected to present them to the cabinet, and Commons. So, rather than waste the time, why not have all the talk at once and form a proper proposal the first time around rather than having to have 3-4 different ones?
It's only going to hinder the ability of the cabinet to actually represent one unit rather than the 9 totally independant ones we have now.
I'm with Dish on the need for better organisation of government. It is quite obvious that both that both of the countries that I am ambassador to, eSpain and eRomania, have a much more professional administration than us.
I also think it is important that the Cabinet works a whole rather than as different partial groups of ministers as propsed by Widds. The government needs to mobilise all the experience it can get. And all the ministers need to understand the different policy areas. e.g. If we are facing war, the defence, trade, and information ministes all need to be involved..
I also like Dish's version of economic policy, working though making available information and advice rather than compulsion. It has actually put us in a very good position for V1.
Good luck, Dish!!
It's more efficient to have people that actually matter making the decisions.
There's nothing wrong with having seperate units among the cabinet at all. Decisions will be made quicker and presented to congress better as they know they're getting the experts views on the matter.
'So, rather than waste the time, why not have all the talk at once and form a proper proposal the first time around rather than having to have 3-4 different ones?'
Why does a 'proper proposal' to congress regarding wood taxes have to involve the MoE/MoM?
Why do those people need to be involved in the decision to ask the war council to mobilise the paras?
Having a smaller meeting between 5 people that know what they're on about will be much quicker than having a meeting with 20 odd people, half of which are relatively clueless about the subject being discussed.
It would reduce the need to have 'have 3-4 different' meeting as it takes less time. Whereas when you have 20 people the odds of them agreeing on a course of action in less time is highly unlikely meaning that cabinet is less effective in presenting proposals and wastes more time, not what we want eh?
You obviously haven't tried on-line meetings before, Widds 😉)
You have to have those meetings anyhow, with people in Commons later then, no? If we are talking about taxes on Wood, if we, say, decided to go to Hungary to get them wouldnt the MoFA and whatnot want to be involved.
And what happens when the MoE, Stan, happens to know a thing or two about taxes and has an actual opinion? All your doing by limiting the number of people who are in the loop is creating a distance between the Gov't officials, and when someone asks a question rather than an answer you'll simply get "Not my department, talk to X". In a cohesive Gov't, everyone should be on the same page. Not 4 people on one page and the rest just starting the book.
My problem is that I wouldn't be able to vote for a CP who would let the economy fall into rubble or even not let it reach full potential just to satisfy free market. The best things are done in moderation and I believe Tim09 would be able to moderate gov. intervention and free market to make sure free will is still preserved but that we have a more efficient economy.
"people are and should be able to choose their own paths, make their own successes, as well as their own failures. We are here to ensure the market availability and profitability of companies in the UK, but if they choose to make poor business decisions, then ultimately the fault lies with the GM."
Biggest contradiction ever? If a GM causes a market crisis, other GMs in that industry will fail, but without choice.
'You obviously haven't tried on-line meetings before, Widds 😉)'
I think you'll find I have, lots of 'em...
Also, Dish if you're asking the MoE about the department of Trade and he says no idea 'not my department talk to X' then I see no problem with that. It's not his job, I just think you're piling unnecessary work on ministers here.
First of all you want all of them to attend a meeting every week: Well first of all good luck with getting them all together at once, it will be impossible to agree on a time where everyone can get there. Having smaller meetings with smaller groups of meetings will be much easier to get people together with. Second of all, having smaller meetings means things get done quicker as less people are involved. This means a more efficient ministerial team.
Secondly: You are setting targets for ministers, this is something I disagree with. It will breed inactivity among ministers. They will hesitate to do something if it doesn't fit in with their 'presidential targets' or it wasn't discussed at their 'meeting'. They will be less likely to be innovative and more likely to be on a leash controlled by the president.
Basically, by instituting cabinet/private meetings with ministers and setting them targets every week, ministers will have less initiative and be less innovative. All they'll need to do is be able to follow orders, like a para in Platoon A.
They'll be on a tighter leash than ever. Basically, by setting ministers targets and having meetings all the time Dish is ensuring that ministers are doing what he wants them to do on a timeline he has set with targets he has set them.
We'd be living in the most authoritarian state in the eUK yet.
I think you're somewhat jumping to conclusions there, Widds, which is part of the reason we got in the argument we got into last time, no?
Setting goals is hardly limiting what Ministers can do. Last time I checked, you set goals for pretty much everything you do. How exactly is it breeding inactivity when we have a MoF who can't connect to the internet, a DoE that can't get enough people to fill their curriculum, an MoI that is overworked, etc etc etc? How would instituting GOALS for a term limit them? Last I checked, that's what a manifesto does, no?
And since you yourself put one of those together you'd basically be calling yourself a complete hypocrit with your last sentence then.
@Bob: One GM cannot cause a market failure, plain and simple. A coordinated effort, such as the PI incident could, however.
@CB: I cannot get over how you completely mistake what the "free market" actually is in economic theory, more or less because of what KIA and Ip and Twaters and the old guard have to say about it, in Erep terms. The Free Market works, plain and simple. I can attest to that in many instances, but it's not free of regulation, it's free of direct interference from the Government. See, thats what Bob here isnt understanding.
Just because I wont Nationalise all industry, which is most likely ultimately what a Communist Party would institute (which, by all means if you're not willing to do so then you shouldnt call yourselves Communist), doesnt mean we wont help industry.
You are simply taking a minor misconception on what economic theory is and applying it to the fact that I'm not your candidate, and Tim is. Frankly speaking, I doubt Tim would institute half these policies if we were in, say, Australia.
'I think you're somewhat jumping to conclusions there, Widds, which is part of the reason we got in the argument we got into last time, no?'
Wrong, we got into an argument last time because you accused me of hijacking a hospital when I had done nothing like that.
'Setting goals is hardly limiting what Ministers can do. Last time I checked, you set goals for pretty much everything you do. '
Incorrect, I used to have no goals at all. I allowed myself to be fluid and allowed myself to be able to change when the situation changes. Which is the opposite of what targets do as a situation might change but you can't, you have to execute the target.
'How would instituting GOALS for a term limit them?'
It should be down to the ministers to set themselves targets, they alone know their strengths/weaknesses and their ability and time to do something. Not the president.
A manifesto sets out ideas and beliefs. We say that we want XYZ to do XYZ, but we realise that times change and therefore goals and targets change. Nothing should be set in stone in politics, whether it's on here or IRL.
Um, you don't actually work, do you? Goals are set all the time. There's a different in being flexible and cooperating with changing events and having no plans at all.
The fact that you just stated that:
A: You set out a manifesto without actually meaning to accomplish things because you want to remain fluid,
and
B: Said that the President shouldnt be able to nor want to set things out for the Ministers
shows that you're doing nothing but disagreeing for the sake of disgreeing. You write a manifesto in hopes of accomplishing those things. You pick Ministers because they can do the job YOU, as PM line out for them. If that's the Minister of Trade, then guess what? I'm guessing your expected to be part of the economic team, and so on. The fact that the Ministers pretty much have no goals is part of the reason we all operate freely, meaning that we talk to the same people but tell them different things.
And before you say it, frankly I dont expect anyone in the PCP to agree with me there, simply because they want Tim to win. But I'm right, and I know it. You can't operate a Government with chaos and disorganization. It simply doesnt get you anywhere.
You dont have a proper argument. The entire first three paragraphs were a rebuttal to exactly the text I pulled from YOUR comment. So why should you rebuttal it? Again, you're disagreeing for the sake of it, simply because you dont want to see me win the elections. Not because I wouldnt make a good PM. Not because I dont have the experience in several areas, etc.
With the new system, I'D BE THE ELECTED PM. Therefore, since the responsibility lies around me to ensure that my job gets done, I feel that you thinking it should be dictated by someone else is horribly off base. If I have plans, and get elected to office based on those plans, then whose to say those plans shouldnt be initiated? Where did I say I was going to say the how, when and where? I said "goals", not guidelines. I do not intend to run the entire UK Gov't, but I do intend to give it structure. For someone in a Communist Party, you're quite against that which is rather odd.
Honestly speaking Widds, you're showing your capabilities here. If you expect to go get a job in the real world where people don't tell you what to do, then you're horribly mistaken. I don't care if you're the PM of the UK IRL, you're still going to have directives. We're an elected Government, whether this is a simulation or not, and should have the same directives. If I have a MoT, then I expect him to do the job as outlined. Does that mean I'm going to log into the DoT to ensure it's done? No. I see no need. But does that mean I have the moxy to get rid of one that chooses to screw off, or, I dont know, disappear for ten days? Hell yes. Everyone knowing how to do the job only furthers the UK.
In fact, I can remember you saying something similar to "I envy the US political situation now, because there are so many good candidates. In the UK, we only have KIA."
How do you think the US got there?
Oh, and Widds, just curious: What the hell is an Authoritarian Capitalist, which is what you basically JUST called me?
'Oh, and Widds, just curious: What the hell is an Authoritarian Capitalist, which is what you basically JUST called me?'
Somebody who wants everything under their control apart from the economy which they're willing to ignore in the name of the 'free market'.
Somebody who threatens an MoD with the sack if they don't do what you tell them to on a purely military structural decision...
I.E: You
Also: Do you disagree with the fact that if Ministers are told exactly what to do, when to do it and how to do it then they will lose all initiative, lose all freedom in the job and basically become lackies of the PM? Not even allowed to take minor structural decisions in their apartment without being threatened with the sack? Do you disagree that if ministers are told exactly what to do then anyone could do the job? You sure as hell wouldn't have great ministers like SBJ if all they did was follow orders. No?
'You loved me in the States, and you can't deny that. You loved the structure and policy'
I 'loved' you because you were a nice, pleasant chap then and I dealt with you sparingly. I used to agree with your 'structure' and 'policy', but that's before I really, really got into government myself. Plus I was never involved directly with the States when you were over there. I was always an observer who knew a bit but not a lot.
Yet, when I ran against KIA, you told me you didnt mind the meetings and structure and just wanted to be MoD. Oh what a difference being in the public eye makes to you, no?
Incorrect, I said that meetings might work. But I also didn't know that you would be setting specific targets, and of course I wanted to be MoD at the time.
But if I had have known that you would have been sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong by trying to change the structure and positions of the army I would have resigned straight away.
Oh and boy am I glad KIA got president that time. I just hope the people of eUK have sense enough to pick two much better candidates ahead of you.
Actually, thats not what you said.
You said, if you want to try and lean everyone into thinking you're NOT two faced, that you didnt care which one of us ran. I knew you'd be voting for KIA, but you said "As long as I get MoD, I really dont care."
Should I continue on how you actually thought me thinking of asking Ip to be a VP to try and make things bipartisan was a decent idea, but you didn't know if he'd accept? Or do I need to go back further. How about the fact that you admitted that you really have no understanding of the economy, and you "leave that to the other guy".
At least if the people of the UK are watching, they'll be happy to know that when you ask me something, I'll give you a straight answer, and the face I present to the public is the same face I present in private. Unlike you, apparently.
I'll say this one more time, as you seem to be a little slow this morning: Where did I say specific targets? I said goals. Should try looking at the two in a dictionary and seeing the difference. One means an outline of things that need to be accomplished. One means a manual on HOW.
Seeing as how the war mod was nothing as advertised, and you have no experience in the new war mod that puts about equal then, doesnt it Widds? Seeing as how neither FD nor Tim have experience at it, how does that make them any better?
And you can deny saying anything you want. One of us knows which is true. I'd be willing to bet I can find a post saying "I just set prices for SHP, I leave the economic stuff to KIA and Ip". The other was on MSN, so I'd suppose you can show up for the PCP all you want.
So, does that mean you don't support FD either, considering he said the same thing?
'"I just set prices for SHP, I leave the economic stuff to KIA and Ip"'
That was then, this is what matters Dish: the present.
'So, does that mean you don't support FD either, considering he said the same thing?'
Said the same thing about what?
Oh and yes you're right, we do know the truth. Well at least I do.
You've been spouting BS for so long that I believe you start to believe your own crap.
FD sai😛 I came to the UK for a relaxing time, and now he is running as well. Maybe you should read a little more thoroughly.
I've been spouting BS? Are you not learned enough to know that history always repeats itself? You get mad, say things you dont mean. You get mad, and move. You realize that you don't know what you're doing, come back, write apology. Rinse, lather, repeat.
"PI is the largest and largely successful company within the PCP group, and it's owned by a small group of investors that have money, whilst the others do not. So, the fact that the majority of your members are what you would refer to as poor is simply masked by the fact that your outspoken members are not. Pot and Kettle much?"
This shows how much BS you spurt. This is one of several times you've made comments about PCPs internal structure, which you know nothing about.
'Are you not learned enough to know that history always repeats itself? You get mad, say things you dont mean. You get mad, and move. You realize that you don't know what you're doing, come back, write apology. Rinse, lather, repeat.'
I think you'll find that's happened once.
And I think it's you who need to watch yourself here, bringing RL into things. Get a grip and grow up.
I need to grow up? Who's had 6 warnings and a ban? Not me, I can tell you that.
@Bob: Then I challenge you to show me any member outside of:
Twaters, KIA, Ip, Widdows, Stan, Tim, and Bremer (who's earnings are under question as of late) that own a successful company and make decent earnings from anything except PI and Investors Ltd. I can think of maybe 4. Out of 210. That sounds like fairly out of whack ratio, no?
That was me who said that in case you didn't guess.
Oh and do you know what I was doing on that account? Only pumping in 200 GBP in to SHP to make sure we have money and RMs in the company.
We're losing money daily with the PI, I'm afraid to admit.
orly Widds? I've caused more than you? The fact that you can't control your temper is more than enough proof to discount that.
Adding money to a company you manage is normal leg work. You can think what you want about me, the fact is it's about 10 people within the PCP who dont like, and are vocal about it. Otherwise, the people I actually work with dont have many issues with me.
'Adding money to a company you manage is normal leg work. '
At the start of V1 we had 240 GOLD and some local currency. We now have 110.
'You can think what you want about me, the fact is it's about 10 people within the PCP who dont like, and are vocal about it. Otherwise, the people I actually work with dont have many issues with me.'
Lol, like you said we're the ones who are vocal. There's a hell of a lot more people who don't really like you. Many aren't in PCP or UKRP either.
"Then I challenge you to show me any member outside of:
Twaters, KIA, Ip, Widdows, Stan, Tim, and Bremer (who's earnings are under question as of late) that own a successful company"
Lotfire
Kumnaa
corny-ratbag
Shall I go on.....