Yes, We Still Need Monarchy Reform

[Ian Plätschisch]

I am glad the King has committed to being more active. If he sticks to it, it will be one of the best things to happen to Talossa for a long time.

That doesn't alleviate the need for Monarchy reform. Talossa needs an active Monarch, and it is just too easy to slip into inactivity when there is no accountability. His Majesty has pledged before to engage more frequently, only to fall short of expectations.

I have worked at resuming a healthy level of activity, and I will redouble my efforts in the new year.  I can report personally that I have retired from my often-demanding work only recently, which will afford me the leisure time to devote myself more vigorously to my duties (as well as to the delightful demands of being a grandfather).   I call on all Talossans to do the same.

This is but one example. Had he been successful before, his latest post would not have been necessary.

To be clear, if a Convocation to select a new King were held today, I would support King John. I am confident his activity could only be improved if he were subject to the oversight that a Convocation once every several years would provide.

Finally, if you expect any ideas from the TNC on this front, forget about it. Their platform includes this gem:

The TNC is engaged in intra-party discussions on reform of the institution of the Monarchy. Potential areas of reform include the re-establishment of a succession procedure, length of the term of office, and the structure of current monarchical powers, but this discussion and policy drive will not come at the expense of the effective day-to-day administration of the Kingdom's government. However, reform simply for the pleasure of tinkering is an exercise in vanity not public service. The Ziu must focus on the real needs of the country, not satisfying the crusades of a few.

This is a not so subtle way of saying that they will ignore the issue for as long as possible (maybe forever), and if you ever ask them about it, they will claim to be too busy with "effective day-to-day administration." One would think that a Monarchist party would understand that the structure of the Monarchy is critical to our Kingdom and can't be brushed aside as "tinkering." The "real needs of the country" include an active Monarch, and they have no ideas when it comes to ensuring we have one.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Finally, if you expect any ideas from the TNC on this front, forget about it. Their platform includes this gem:

The TNC is engaged in intra-party discussions on reform of the institution of the Monarchy. Potential areas of reform include the re-establishment of a succession procedure, length of the term of office, and the structure of current monarchical powers, but this discussion and policy drive will not come at the expense of the effective day-to-day administration of the Kingdom's government. However, reform simply for the pleasure of tinkering is an exercise in vanity not public service. The Ziu must focus on the real needs of the country, not satisfying the crusades of a few.

This is a not so subtle way of saying that they will ignore the issue for as long as possible (maybe forever), and if you ever ask them about it, they will claim to be too busy with "effective day-to-day administration."

Before the first Clark, the Government announced a legislative blockade to try to force the TNC to agree to its demands, and that blockade collapsed one month ago.  Before then and since, we have been actively discussing the different proposals people have suggested.  Literally a few hours ago, I posted a thread for our internal discussion with a potential bill, after several others over past weeks from various people, and we're chatting about it.

The TNC is not misleading the public, as you suggest.  We were critical of that sort of behavior from this Government during last term, when they flatly lied to the people of Talossa and insisted that the absentee Seneschal was actively managing things.  So we're not about to start acting that way ourselves.  We said we were actively working on proposals, and we are.

I don't know why the Government is working so hard to poison the well, with threats and blockades for two months, and now with officials making speeches about how they won't trust any TNC proposal anyway or insisting that the TNC is lying about it.  But it's really counterproductive.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

they flatly lied to the people of Talossa ...

I don't know why the Government is working so hard to poison the well...

Res ipsa loquitur. Or, if you want more Latin: tu quoque. I implore the TNC leadership to think about how turning up the rhetorical heat like this benefits the national discourse.

But on topic: I'm sure the TNC are coming up with all kinds of interesting proposals in their closed-door deliberations. Unlike some, I fully support the right of parties to have internal debates. But it's beginning to sounds like D. J. Trump's infamous "you'll see my healthcare plan in two weeks, promise".

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Res ipsa loquitur. Or, if you want more Latin: tu quoque. I implore the TNC leadership to think about how turning up the rhetorical heat like this benefits the national discourse.

...?  This thread started with the Seneschal publicly accusing the TNC of lying about our stance on this issue.

This sort of thing doesn't really benefit the national discourse, yes.  The blockade, speeches about how nothing the TNC proposes can be trusted, or speeches about how the TNC is lying: all of those things are counterproductive if you actually want to address the issue.  As you say, we shouldn't be "turning up the rhetorical heat," since it's not going to help anyone.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I'm not accusing the TNC of lying so much as reading between the lines to figure out how it plans to obfuscate without directly contradicting itself. I'm sure that there is some discussion on the TNC board about monarchy reform, but any action appears all too likely to be postponed indefinitely, especially considering the TNC's reluctance to discuss the issue to this point.

Putting forward a "weak sauce" proposal and then never taking it anyway would not make the TNC liars, but it would not be what most people think of when they hear monarchy reform, and that's what I'm pointing out.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm not accusing the TNC of lying so much as reading between the lines to figure out how it plans to obfuscate without directly contradicting itself. I'm sure that there is some discussion on the TNC board about monarchy reform, but any action appears all too likely to be postponed indefinitely, especially considering the TNC's reluctance to discuss the issue to this point.

Putting forward a "weak sauce" proposal and then never taking it anyway would not make the TNC liars, but it would not be what most people think of when they hear monarchy reform, and that's what I'm pointing out.

Again, I think this whole thread is counterproductive and misguided. If you insist on parsing it, though: You say that we are only pretending to work on a proposal in earnest, and you are saying that either we will never present our proposal, or that it will be a deliberately unacceptable one rather than a good-faith effort.

This reads to me like a very clear statement that we are lying about our intentions in order to deceive the public. We have been clear that we are working on this actively, but you are saying that our attitude about the priority of this issue reveals that we are really being deceptive. And a Government with this record should be reminded of their own behavior when it comes to misleading the public; we are taking a different path.

It's clear that this is the government's top priority, but there are a lot better ways to press your case or urge action. Making proposals of your own or sending private messages to state important principles you think should be considered, for example. How about we all just move on from this thread, since it's an antagonistic, tedious waste of time to parse out exactly the semantics here?

[Ian Plätschisch]

I'd like nothing better than to be proven wrong.

Everyone knows what my ideal bill would be; it was voted down by the TNC with no comment on potential improvements. There's no point in me proposing anything else until I know what the TNC will support.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

As Ian P says, the way in which the "Compromise Squared" was simply rejected - by a party led by someone who used to be a strong supporter of it - with no explanation is the main stumbling block that needs to be gotten over to convince our side of the TNC's good faith in this matter. And the continual refusals of the TNC leader to discuss the matter when press doesn't help either.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

As Ian P says, the way in which the "Compromise Squared" was simply rejected - by a party led by someone who used to be a strong supporter of it - with no explanation is the main stumbling block that needs to be gotten over to convince our side of the TNC's good faith in this matter. And the continual refusals of the TNC leader to discuss the matter when press doesn't help either.

The blockade/boycott was a deeply damaging act, Miestra. And Ian's badgering by repeatedly posting the question on unrelated posts doesn't help to increase my desire to discuss the issue with FreeDems either. But I also acknowledge and am remorseful for the damage to our ability to trust one another that my withdrawal of support for 55RZ1 caused. It was not a nefarious act but I failed to explain what happened and completely understand the assigning of nefarious intent in the absence of explanation. As a part of our discussions in the Talossan Empathy Network I will flesh this out with you in detail because our initial exchanges give me hope.

I understand the skepticism but I can confirm monarchy reform policy discussions with party colleagues. The TNC is close to announcing our own proposal. That proposal will be inclusive of my opinions and others on monarchy reform. So my answer to the question repeatedly asked by you and Ian, "what do you think on monarchy reform?" will come soon in the form of that policy announcement.