Thanks for having me Sopo.
Like that guy with the nice haircuit, I would give this administration a 6 out of 10. There seems to be a missing “oomph”, that quirk that once pointed out you go “Yes! Yes! The Rachel administration!”. The previous office holder, Earth22, had that in the FireSkype chats. Rachel (and I use her name in lieu of “the Rachel administration” unless context otherwise provides) did have that under Panlu with her weekly (read : for one week only) MSN conversations. With so much talk about developing (to use our beloved host’s words) “organic relationships”, I believe a trick was missed here.
Did Rachel
really need to wait for her Culture Minister to come back to push this back onto the agenda? And with boots’ elevation, not a word has been spoken about a weekly get-together.
As Lethen pointed out, Rachel’s personal reaction to the EAC controversy was exactly what I would expect from a good president. Her reaction put her squarely in the friendly category but it may have, possibly unfairly, left Anumia out to dry.
Rightly or wrongly, the People look to the activity of the Cabinet as a proxy for regional health. Indycar’s, CSP’s, and Panlu’s inactivity created a slight sense of regional ill-health and the person that the People turn to, to blame is the President. I have remarked that the American Constitution endowed its People with an unfair “cult of the President”, and I think that has happened here. The emphasis should rather be the Cabinet – like the English system.
I would again have to agree with Lethen that switching Asianatic with Asperta would probably have been wise. I don’t know the entirety of the situation, but disagreements
happen. There is a concept of collective responsibility in the English Cabinet – in the Cabinet room one can disagree and argue to their heart’s content but outside they must give the
impression they agree totally. Any Minister wishing to express ,publicly, must resign. I would like to introduce the concept of the English Cabinet :
Bagehot's Constitution said:
The most curious point about the Cabinet is that so very little is known about it. The meetings are not only secret in theory, but secret in reality. By the present practice, no official minute in all ordinary cases is kept of them. Even a private note is discouraged and disliked. The House of Commons, even in its most inquisitive and turbulent moments, would scarcely permit a note of a Cabinet meeting to be read. No Minister who respected the fundamental usages of political practice would attempt to read such a note. …is a committee wholly secret… It is said that at the end of the Cabinet which agreed to propose a fixed duty on corn, Lord Melbourne put his back to the door and said, "Now is it to lower the price of corn or isn`t it? It is not much matter which we say, but mind, we must all say THE SAME."
And I hold to that, at least personally. Voicing of opinion must be encouraged privately, but it is when disagreements from within are aired publicly that good government falters. As I said before, I know not the whole situation but to those who do, they now know my philosophy.
The choice of Grand Admiral and Welfare Ministers was good. However, I do have one slight gripe with the Navy right now. Let me warn you, it’s an incredibly small one. I am disappointed with the new titles, specifically, their inclusion of “Lord”. It would be nice to have noble pomp, but sadly, this region is not for it. All other things have pleased me.
Interior has seen quite some press coverage and I think PhDre’s “nomination” was badly done. In her eagerness, Rachel made a mistake. Mistakes happen, we learn collectively and move on.
A changing cabinet necessarily involves a changing administration. The characters in Cabinet make up the administration and consequently, a solid Cabinet makes for a solid, determined administration.
The lack of that certain magic and a Cabinet flux is why I mark it as 6 out of 10.
