His Majesy and I last evening were discussing and suggesting ideas for the office of the Prime Minister for a Unified Hanover and it became apparent that there needs to be a new workable formula for selecting a Prime Minister to be accountable to the Throne and to the people. His Majesty suggested that He nominates a Prime Minister and that then the people elects him or her.
I suggested in return that this is a good idea but that the Prime Minister serves as a extra parliamentary member and as such the Speaker of the House outside of the formula for the House we already suggested but does vote during ties. Cabinet is recommended tot he King by th Prime Minister who appoitns them, two memers from each house and two members of out of the Parliament and the two members in each of the Houses still retain their parliamentary seats but Cabine is an extra parliamentary body, ie it serves as His Majesty's government out of parliament.
Any thoughts?
Lord Lancaster,
My only comment is that the forumla of two cabinet members from each house, while maintaining balance, does not address the needs of the government. What if three ministers are needed, or five? Locking it down to four is arbitrary. Keeping things balanced is a worthy goal and should not be lost, but requiring four seems to tie the governments hands without cause.
Or maybe We mustinderstand?
Regards,
HM Alexander of Hanover
Well perhaps if the need for more is necessary then it could be choosen extra parliamentary.
Lord Lancaster,
Whatever the solutin, it just needs to be expandable.
Regards,
HM Alexander of Hanover
Gentlemen,
This proposal is agreeable to me, so long as Ministers are not appointed by Parliament, or on the basis of party. I agree with Lord McIntyre's proposal that further cabinet ministers, beyond the initial four, be appointed outside of parliament.
Sincerely,
Lord Oldenburg
I agree that having an equal number of ministers from each house is a good idea. I personlaly would like to see the title changed for PM and Cabinet to reflect the new government head and Cabinet.
I like the title of CHancellor
I think that merging the Council of State and Cabinet into a bigger COuncil of state could work since both groups are advisors to the king.
Prince Daniel,
The Chancellor heads the Royal Court and not the Council of State. Furthermore I tihnk it is important to keep both bodies seperate as the members of the State Council are advisors from all walks and the Cabinet are specific walks.
Baron Oldenburg,
I offered my compromise to this equation but I also believe the party system is suuperior and this was a big compromise of my believe system.
Lord Lancaster,
We would hope that this method expands your basic belief and does not nullify it. As We see it, this arrangement allows for the maximum flexibility AND the ahderance to traditional majority party rule as the needs of the nation warrent.
Regards,
HM Alexander
I have revised my original thinking on the idea. As we have so few members, it may not be possible to have all ministers in parliament. Why not have ministers appointed not on the basis of their membership of parliament or political affiliation, but on merit? But the government, appointed by the King, could be accountable to Parliament who could dismiss it by a vote of no-confidence. The King would then appoint a new government/PM to receive a vote of confidence by Parliament. If Parliament failed a second time - or alternatively a third time is also possible - the King would then dissolve the Parliament and call for fresh elections.
Just a few thoughts.