Join the new world

PHX on Phacebook?

A chum of mine has recently gone about setting up a PHX group on facebook, and as we all know the recruitment benefits such facebook groups can bring, yet alone the voyeuristic interest in who’s who in the real world means that you should all join it.

The link is here;
http://www.facebook.com/pages/eRepublik-Phoenix/123161471079118?ref=sgm
and hopefully it can give us news updates and noobs all through our news feeds, new players for the admins to play with and joy for all.

Thanks to RizonPT for setting it up.


Thumbs Up


Friend or Foe: The Degradation of House-Army Relations

As of recent, the military and the house of commons have been exchanging blows, and obviously as king it is my god appointed duty to lay out the sensible opinion on what they should do to calmly proceed hand in hand.

Having been involved in a command position in the military for many many moons until recently, and involved in every government since Kumnaa I have been following the eUK and had a specific interest in it’s military for a long time. That said I feel I have good grounds from which to comment. It’s probably worth pointing out as a disclaimer that I haven’t officially been involved in this government, as I thought I would take a back seat on focus on my military job. I was then laid off from my military job.


’S all good, Thatcher kinda sorta gave me a job in the MoF. It’s been dead easy so far!

An important part of deciding how this can be done is to look to the past to see how it got as bad as it was a few weeks ago. I have been laying my opinion all over the forums, (by that, I mean many times in a single thread) and have decided for slightly better coverage to publish what I hope you will find a convincing article.

First of all I would like to touch upon anti-congress thought in the military. James Woosh explains how; “As a result we were basically opposed to congress involvement in the Navy and in turn this grew into a means of entertainment.” However I would go on to say that the CGS with its theoretical (note, theoretical) independence from politics institutionalised anti-congress thought in the military.

The Independence of the CGS system also facilitated transparency to almost completely diminish. Evidence in this can be found where one officer said that if you weren’t in the army, “you shouldn’t even be informed”. This in itself isn’t anti-congress talk, but part of the mentality that has been adopted since the CGS was introduced. It is also wrong, as without the Government the army would be nothing; every part of the countries administration is subject to transparency, so too should be the military. This doesn’t mean congress need be privy to any sensitive information, but regular updates and spending reports at the very least should be given.

At this point I’d like to note how in some quarters there is pro-thought for an MoD middle man to cover transparency issues. It may be a distant memory to some but I, noticing the lack of procedure and transparency urged military command to sort themselves out, and appointed someone to cover transparency during my last term. It was adamantly opposed by the CGS at the time and finding and efficient function for the role became tricky.


(Tranny = transmission)

Another rough patch occurred with a CGS which unfortunately couldn’t be fixed by quick action on behalf of Toyota. The whole ideology and drive behind implementing a CGS system was that it was nonpartisan. Exempt from any party quarrels that could potentially harm the military. I remember that time the judiciary act was abolished and the military caved in on itself... Wasn’t pretty.

However what exactly it meant to be nonpartisan often eluded some CGS’, even just comments on manifesto's could influence voters, and so be interpreted as partisan. This blind partisanship can only really be stopped by people who use a PM to voice any opinion rather than a public statement. There are of course better examples of partisanship, including the notorious attempt of one CGS to try and PTO his rival party. In that sense an individual in that role was more partisan than I remember any political commander being.



Besides the obvious issue of striking out against the core principle of having a CGS, this event was only the tip of a larger problem surrounding accountability and the role of an independent leader.

The CGS who attempted the PTO was removed after about two weeks of discussion. There was discontent prior to his attempt mainly with his views of where the Prime Minister sat in the chain of command and exactly what his duties were. As past CGS’s had neglected to maintain any selection or removal procedure, things I tried to implement as a member of command pre-being elected we were at a loss over how to handle the situation.

As CP at the time I decided to honour the new breathe of Independence the military were trying and allowed command to mull over the issue and discuss what we should do about it. The rest as they say is history, and for the sake of someone who I occasionally think of as a chum I needn’t explicitly say what happened next. The main point is there was a lack of accountability surrounding the position, and something which I feel the Armed Services Bill fixed.

Don’t get me wrong mind, I’m not exactly pro legislating the military. I had explicitly said that the army needs to sort out its own procedure before someone else does, and after a theft someone else decided to do so. The bill brings back a sense of accountability and isn’t wholly restrictive. However, is it necessary?


For a while now I’ve been discussing with pals our obvious alternative

The Minister of Defence is the position that the CGS replaced, and it headed the team of CO’s who each managed their own branch, whilst remaining transparent and directly accountable to the Prime Minister (and by the threat of impeachment the House of Commons).

Contrary to popular belief, the MoD didn’t change every month and won’t result in every person in the military being fired. In fact to most people in the military a change from CGS to MoD won’t make any difference to them at all. The one person who it may affect may have to alter 3 words in their signature and take a step back in the hands on running of branches, but that is all.

As with any minister the MoD is subject to weekly reports, transparency will no longer be an issue. More importantly, as these two issues are addressed by bringing back the MoD, the Armed Services Bill will be much easier to persuade people to repeal. Everyone will be happy.

To lay down some summarising facts:
- The CGS has proven no better than any MoD at being nonpartisan
- The MoD has greater accountability and transparency than an unlegislated CGS.
- Re-Introducing the MoD will not cause massive changes in the army staff.

- The CGS system has been tried and has not met standards.
- A joint CGS and MoD system has proven inefficient and productivity can be blocked on the whim of a CGS.
- History shows that MoD’s rarely changed - similar to the tradition of incumbent MoF’s staying on.

- Bringing back the MoD can lead to an easy ASB repeal and a healing between the congress-military rifts.




eMarriage

On an otherwise unrelated note, two chums of mine were recently married, and I would like to ordain them as the Lord and Lady of Essex..


Thanks for reading.
HM, Mr Woldy .
OBE, KCVS, MC.
Formerly CP, SG.


Cheese