April Political Commentary

[Deleted]

All right, I'll bite.

What is with the push for a vote of no confidence?

[King John]

In most parliamentary governments, a "No" on a Vote of Confidence usually means pretty much nothing more than "I am in an opposition party". It's a mechanism for testing from time to time whether the Government still commands a majority of the House. It *doesn't* mean "I think the Government are a bunch of scoundrels, thieves, and puppy-rapists."

So I think maybe we should take No votes to mean simply that the opposition parties are, uh, opposing.

— John R

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Well, accept for the part about "puppy-rapists" ...

I kinda have to agree with the "scoundrels" and "thieves" part.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

john said:

In most parliamentary governments, a "No" on a Vote of Confidence usually means pretty much nothing more than "I am in an opposition party". It's a mechanism for testing from time to time whether the Government still commands a majority of the House. It *doesn't* mean "I think the Government are a bunch of scoundrels, thieves, and puppy-rapists."

That's true. In Talossa, it's common for opposition members to vote üc unless the government has been particularly incompetent or malfeasant, but our current opposition probably is unaware of such a tradition, and therefore probably does not intend to send such a message.

[Vit Caçeir]

siervicul said:

That's true. In Talossa, it's common for opposition members to vote üc unless the government has been particularly incompetent or malfeasant, but our current opposition probably is unaware of such a tradition, and therefore probably does not intend to send such a message.

I would hope that Sir Siervicül would notice that not ALL members of opposition parties have voted NON on the V.O.C....

But to answer Capt. Asmourescu's question, many members of my party are upset that they cannot get their bills passed, therefore, they find it necessary to deem the government incompotent.

If you'll look in the April Clark, you'll find that I and others feel otherwise...

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

edwardwadas said:

I would hope that Sir Siervicül would notice that not ALL members of opposition parties have voted NON on the V.O.C....

True -- I should have limited my statement.

But to answer Capt. Asmourescu's question, many members of my party are upset that they cannot get their bills passed, therefore, they find it necessary to deem the government incompotent.

Objectively, a claim of incompetence against a majority government might be more justifiable if it allows the minority to enact its agenda.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Éovart -

I understand your stance, and your statements. I am sure that some of the LRT people are quite frustrated by the failure of their legislation to pass.

I would suggest that they look closely at the conversations in the Hopper. Many times the bills that were asked to be Clarked were horribly trashed in the Hopper - and had no chance of being passed. But the Author(s) insisted on Clarking them anyway. ( I think Ego got in the way there.) What looks like a sound thrashing in the Clark had already (seemingly) been resolved in the Hopper.

The other thing I woulds suggest is that instead of re-writing the OrgLaw as the LRT's 1st agenda, that the passing of Statues and Acts be fine tuned.

Getting an Amendment to the OrgLaw passed is very, very difficult. I should know, I've gotten one passed myself.

==============================

These are my personal opinions, and do not reflect my Party's opinions, btw.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Just to point out:

I was one of the more hesitant ones to vote Non.
Something to think about

[Owen Edwards]

I would kindly ask the honourable Captain to be unhasty in casting aspersions about any Talossan's knowledge of tradition.

My particular view on how to interpret the VOC, formed after a number of discussions with seveal leading Talossanson the matter - and amply voiced by the King, who I understand by your logic is a terribly ignorant rascal - is that saying NON is to say "I do not have confidence in his Government to govern as well as I deem necessary".

The suggetion for the VOC vote came from me. This government has seen the failure of ICE XIV (RUMP-proposed, and vital in my view to the future of Talossa), the failure of the Domesday Act (RUMP-proposed, voted for by 23 members of the Ziu and voted against by 5, and an important element of understanding Talossanity and adding into our longterm national identity, amongst other things) and the Saffron Act (an Act with a broad base of support, including the PM and SoS, a Bill with a serious implication for how we treat outside world affairs, and in a positive manner, too). I, for one, am not terribly nettled by the Act I proposed not passing; I abstained in the vote on another failing LRT Bill; and whilst I disagree with it, I understand the reasoning behind voting against the Secret Ballot Investigation Bill.

I think it is a lazy misstep (oh, and a mild insult) by members of my own party and of others to assume my thoughts were inspired by sour grapes or ignorance of tradition. Be sure to inform the RUMP sponsor of ICE XIV and Domesday Act that his Bills were egotistically pushed forward; be sure to tell the King he's ignorant.

O

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Owen-

If by "honourable Captain" you were addressing me, might I draw your attention that I was repling to Éovart - Not the LRT, nor anyone else in the Kingdom. He made the statement of his beliefs, I addressed my response to that statement.

If by "honourable Captain" You were addressing Capt. T. - then I will step aside, and let you make your case.

[Vit Caçeir]

owenfsf said:

I think it is a lazy misstep (oh, and a mild insult) by members of my own party and of others to assume my thoughts were inspired by sour grapes or ignorance of tradition. Be sure to inform the RUMP sponsor of ICE XIV and Domesday Act that his Bills were egotistically pushed forward; be sure to tell the King he's ignorant.

Firstly, allow me to state that my disagreement with your position on the VOC is in no way intended as an insult. There’s a reason I voted for you when we were electing a party leader, S:reu Edwards.

Secondly, allow me to reassert my position. I too am disappointed that certain bills (especially the Saffron Act) were not voted into law, but in my opinion, randomly reshuffling the government is not going to get them passed any sooner. Clearly, there’s something the Senators objected to in the bill, so instead of forcing them out of offices they were democratically elected to (which a Vote of No Confidence would do), why not work with the people publicly elected to office to try and work out a compromise or to try and better understand each other’s opinions? It seems to me that there is limited (formal) legislative discussion between several members of the Cosa and the Senats… perhaps it is something we could try in the future, as opposed to shuffling what (in my eyes) is a compotent, functioning government.

mick said:

I would suggest that they look closely at the conversations in the Hopper. Many times the bills that were asked to be Clarked were horribly trashed in the Hopper - and had no chance of being passed.

(The main reason I've yet to clark the Kosovo Independence Bill)

EDIT: Gramattical Error

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

owenfsf said:

The suggetion for the VOC vote came from me. This government has seen the failure of ICE XIV (RUMP-proposed, and vital in my view to the future of Talossa), the failure of the Domesday Act (RUMP-proposed, voted for by 23 members of the Ziu and voted against by 5, and an important element of understanding Talossanity and adding into our longterm national identity, amongst other things) and the Saffron Act (an Act with a broad base of support, including the PM and SoS, a Bill with a serious implication for how we treat outside world affairs, and in a positive manner, too). I, for one, am not terribly nettled by the Act I proposed not passing; I abstained in the vote on another failing LRT Bill; and whilst I disagree with it, I understand the reasoning behind voting against the Secret Ballot Investigation Bill.

Thank you for your explanation. That clears things up a lot. Paradoxically, it appears that the root of your frustration is the conservatism (in a purely Talossan sense) of the Senäts, but the makeup of the Senäts is difficult to influence through a VOC (at least compared to the Cosa).

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

edwardwadas said:

so instead of forcing them out of offices they were democratically elected to (which a Vote of No Confidence would do)

Actually, a vote of no confidence would only affect the two senators (representing Florencia and Cézembre) who are next up for election. Owen mentioned the failure of ICE XIV, the Domesday Act, and the Saffron Act. Even if both of those senators were replaced with reliable per votes for all three bills, all three would still fail unless some other senator changed his or her vote.

[Owen Edwards]

But would not a dissolution lead to a general election - and the contesting of two Senats seats?

Mick, my remarks were directed towards Captain Asmourescu in large part - though you discussed LRT sour grapes in your post which I also wished to discuss.

MC Caceir: "But to answer Capt. Asmourescu's question, many members of my party are upset that they cannot get their bills passed, therefore, they find it necessary to deem the government incompotent."

I am more concerned with getting Senator Davis' Bills passed. Perhaps you mistook him for the person suggesting the Non vote? Perhaps you mistook my opinions for his sour grapes? Enlighten me.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

I think the idea was that the Senate wouldn't especially be able to function if their was no government. So it was an indirect way to influence the senate.