|
|
Post by Sir Chris Barrett on Jan 26, 2006 21:25:37 GMT
Hows he neutral?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Chris Barrett on Jan 26, 2006 21:25:58 GMT
It should be a joint decision, made by you, me and the king
|
|
|
|
Post by General Plunkett on Jan 26, 2006 21:28:27 GMT
He is nuetral in the sense that he does not have a party policy to stick to!
In the end surely it is HIS decison?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Chris Barrett on Jan 26, 2006 21:31:06 GMT
I wrote the party manifesto according to MY views. therefore im not sticking to it jsut toget at you, im sticking to it because iuts what i feel we should do!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wucubby, C o f E on Jan 28, 2006 16:49:10 GMT
the government must b consulted because they are the ppl that make the policies and so have 2 look at all the perspectives, of course the chief of the military has 2 b consulted 4 strategic reasons only, the government makes the policies. have no fear nation of NE will not be a push over
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Chris Barrett on Jan 28, 2006 16:50:40 GMT
exactly. listen to Wucubby. He knows what hes on about!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ernestosanchez on Jan 28, 2006 17:08:14 GMT
I think that we should establish a system in which the king chooses the 3 main parties (when there are 3) and the witan should have to consult to this little council of some sort, led by the king, before giving big choices. The members of the council should then be allowed to veto.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Chris Barrett on Jan 28, 2006 17:10:20 GMT
Then you end up in deadlock. Veto=shit. We could just do proportional representation for the Witan. # seats = % of vote. Doesnt that make more sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by ernestosanchez on Jan 28, 2006 17:22:27 GMT
ure right, but the king needs to recognize the 3 giants (aka main parties)
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Chris Barrett on Jan 28, 2006 17:22:59 GMT
Well, then we need a third one!
|
|
|
|
Post by king Joseph I on Jan 28, 2006 19:02:03 GMT
Well we have 2 main ones at the moment the P.E.L.P and NEDP
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Chris Barrett on Jan 28, 2006 19:19:11 GMT
we ahve another one now. And they could just win taht election i reckon.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Plunkett on Jan 28, 2006 22:37:12 GMT
mmmmm maybe
|
|
|
|
Post by Wucubby, C o f E on Jan 29, 2006 11:52:45 GMT
that 3 party idea is just stupid,because we end up with problems due to veto and stuff.Proportional representation makes more sense but if no party has the majority then we end up in the same situation as the 3 party idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Chris Barrett on Jan 29, 2006 12:49:00 GMT
Well proportional representation gets my vote i think, we could go with FPTP, ill hold a referendum on it
|
|
