|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 28, 2019 17:33:36 GMT -6
If this passes, I am still going to refer to the "Leader of the Opposition" as el Omnicanerie.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 28, 2019 18:10:22 GMT -6
If this passes, I am still going to refer to the "Leader of the Opposition" as el Omnicanerie. Well, that's precisely why I didn't include a Talossan-language term, because if people want to use competing ones, I'm happy to leave it open to market forces
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 28, 2019 18:35:32 GMT -6
No power in the 'verse can stop me.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on May 29, 2019 3:54:46 GMT -6
Big fat cosponsor, with a few caveats: [...] may I cosponsor ples
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jun 7, 2019 14:17:48 GMT -6
I don't understand the reason for this. We're not the UK, our political system is very different, why do we need to copy them? I think this steers Talossa more towards a two party system, rewarding the largest party in opposition (and also giving some weird incentive for parties to vote NON on the VoC), while we should really celebrate the pluralism of our politics. Why does the opposition need a single leader when the parties in the opposition can be so different? If this is then used as an excuse to remove privileges of the smaller opposition parties just to make the position more interesting we are really heading in the wrong direction. To expand a bit more on the VOC point: there have always been different opinions as to whether opposition parties should vote NON when a government already has the support of a Cosa majority. I certainly used to argue that the VoC should have meaning and that to vote against it when the government has secured democratic backing otherwise should only be done when there is a reason for it, e.g. when the government does not fulfill its duties, does not keep its promises, lies to parliament, refuses requests for information, ignores a sense of the Ziu, etc. That way, the full opposition voting against the VoC is a clear signal that the government is doing something wrong, not just the obvious result of political reality that can easily be ignored. Others of course disagree and believe that the duty of an opposition party is always to vote against the government, no matter what. In other countries, traditions may differ as well. In the Netherlands for example it is quite common for parties that nobody disputes are in the opposition to vote against a motion of no-confidence when they do not find sufficient reason. It's perfectly possible for people who disagree on this topic to coexist in the opposition and for every opposition party to make their own decision. But now this bill takes away the possibility to disagree by defining opposition parties in a very strict sense and punishing the largest party not in government if it votes ÜC (or even Abstain if that ever becomes a possibility). And I still don't see how this would create a vibrant alternative Government (or do anything but steer Talossa slightly towards a two-party state).
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jun 14, 2019 3:39:49 GMT -6
I don't understand the reason for this. We're not the UK, our political system is very different, why do we need to copy them? I think this steers Talossa more towards a two party system, rewarding the largest party in opposition (and also giving some weird incentive for parties to vote NON on the VoC), while we should really celebrate the pluralism of our politics. Why does the opposition need a single leader when the parties in the opposition can be so different? If this is then used as an excuse to remove privileges of the smaller opposition parties just to make the position more interesting we are really heading in the wrong direction. To expand a bit more on the VOC point: there have always been different opinions as to whether opposition parties should vote NON when a government already has the support of a Cosa majority. I certainly used to argue that the VoC should have meaning and that to vote against it when the government has secured democratic backing otherwise should only be done when there is a reason for it, e.g. when the government does not fulfill its duties, does not keep its promises, lies to parliament, refuses requests for information, ignores a sense of the Ziu, etc. That way, the full opposition voting against the VoC is a clear signal that the government is doing something wrong, not just the obvious result of political reality that can easily be ignored. Others of course disagree and believe that the duty of an opposition party is always to vote against the government, no matter what. In other countries, traditions may differ as well. In the Netherlands for example it is quite common for parties that nobody disputes are in the opposition to vote against a motion of no-confidence when they do not find sufficient reason. It's perfectly possible for people who disagree on this topic to coexist in the opposition and for every opposition party to make their own decision. But now this bill takes away the possibility to disagree by defining opposition parties in a very strict sense and punishing the largest party not in government if it votes ÜC (or even Abstain if that ever becomes a possibility). And I still don't see how this would create a vibrant alternative Government (or do anything but steer Talossa slightly towards a two-party state). Any comments/thoughts on the above? Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN Lüc da Schir Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h Ian Plätschisch
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Jun 14, 2019 10:17:58 GMT -6
I've often thought that, rather than the UK, we are aiming for the Canada model, which has three feasible parties that are into power in different provinces. The "Leader of the Opposition", in such a political system, is actually the Leader of the Official Opposition, thus I don't think it's actually implied that the leader, as mentioned in the bill, is actually representative of all opposition parties. That's not what happens in the Westminster system, at least. Jeremy Corbyn doesn't represent Lib Dem MPs; and Ian Blackford has his privileged spot at PMQs, separate from Labour's. I would understand this objection if the bill actually removed privileges from other opposition parties; but they presently have no particular privileges at all, the same as any MC. They can ask as many Terps as they want and can debate without limits on the Ziu board. The only thing this bill does is dignify the position of the leader of the second biggest party as an actual alternative to the Prime Minister. Your point is valid, but IRL opposition parties are often opportunistic with VoCs, as they don't just influence the government but also the parliament, that is usually dissolved in case of a failure. So parties will vote down a motion with no other reason than exploiting a good polling situation, or conversely vote in favour to avoid dissolving Parliament in an unfavourable moment in time. Honestly, this wouldn't have been a problem had Ian accepted my suggestion to not make VoCs compulsory in the OrgLaw draft. He didn't, this bill is less good than it would have been, but we deal with it. I prefer voting for this bill and amending the OrgLaw later, than dropping/amending the provision from this bill or voting the bill down. We need an automatic selection, or I wouldn't trust the Cosa to act on this bill when it's law.
Oh, we won't avoid a two-party state by voting down this bill. We avoided a two-party state by offering a strong centrist alternative to the ideological poles. Not my fault if that's not there anymore.
Also, if anything, by all means this incentivises the opposition's activity. The leader of the opposition can assemble a shadow cabinet, and the other parties are incentivised to follow the lead of the official opposition and make their voice heard.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Jun 15, 2019 4:48:29 GMT -6
Wait, I got it all wrong. Ian DID put in the VoC abstention bit. Then even on that count there's no problem at all, as opposition parties aren't obliged to vote NON on the VoC any longer. The main opposition party can just have a token NON vote to get the post of opposition leader, and minor opposition parties can just abstain on the VoC to get out of the Loyal/Official Opposition.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jun 18, 2019 15:30:03 GMT -6
Thank you for your response. I think a lot of bills are being passed these past few years without much (or sometimes -any-) debate so I'm glad you are here to defend this proposal.
I don't really understand why we need to legislate a difference between opposition and "official" opposition or how we think the "official" opposition should behave in regards to the VoC, especially since the bill does not seem to do much else.
I'm glad it does not btw, though I do worry someone will inevitably come up with a next step that does give additional privileges to the new "leader" of the opposition.
I also really fail to see how exactly or by what mechanism this incentives the opposition to do anything (except for the largest non government party to vote against the VoC). Parties can form shadow cabinets now and in fact this has been tried in the past, even by parties that did not always vote non on the VoC and when this failed it had little to do with their leader lacking a fancy function. Nor do I see how it would give any further incentives to parties that do not get to have this new leader. Through what mechanism is all this supposed to happen?
Lastly I wonder if between all this -government legislating what the opposition should do- we are forgetting that government MZs also have a role in between a check on their own government and holding their own ministers to account that usually is being neglected
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jun 18, 2019 15:31:09 GMT -6
Wait, I got it all wrong. Ian DID put in the VoC abstention bit. Then even on that count there's no problem at all, as opposition parties aren't obliged to vote NON on the VoC any longer. The main opposition party can just have a token NON vote to get the post of opposition leader, and minor opposition parties can just abstain on the VoC to get out of the Loyal/Official Opposition. Huh? Doesn't that make it worse though. Now we could also have the largest non government party abstaining and still being punished by not getting this new fancy title.
|
|