Improving the quality of legislation

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I've had it suggested to me, in private conversation, that the proliferation of recent Royal vetos may be a comment on ill-considered or rushed legislation.

So I would like to offer to the Ziu for discussion two proposals which might fix this which I think I've presented before, but went nowhere:

- (a) appoint a Clerk of the Ziu to do legal proofreading on each Clark before it goes out. This could be part of the Chancery, and would require someone without strong politics but with a good eye for detail looking for typos, contradictions, obvious confligts with the OrgLaw etc. It might require bills to be Clarked to be submitted more than 3 days before the Clark to give the proofreader a chance.

- (b) have the two Houses of the Ziu make their decisions separately; i.e. make the Cosa vote on a bill on one Clark, then the Senats on the next Clark (or the other way around). This would provide more "lead time" before a bill goes to the King to catch any odds and ends which need fixing. It would also replicate procedure in other bicameral legislatures.

Anyone got any other ideaS?

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Honeslty I think a way forward might be a back and forth system with the Cosa and the Senate (with one of the houses (pref.the Cosa) having a potential override vote after a set number of back and forths if no progress is being made)
Honestly the system i have in mind might seem a bit complicated and lengthy bit it would allow more time for debates to be made, although it might need a re think of timescales of how our electoral timescale.

My thoughts are, that their remains a general hopper where anyone can draw up a proposal, for the consideration of the Zui. To be put forward as legislation, it has to be picked up as a bill in a seperate Cosa hopper, strictly for members of Cosa, which then will debate and propose changes to the bill before sending it to the Senate hopper. This back and forth goes on a few times before a final version is apporved by both houses for approval to be clarked. which before it is, it is looked over to make sure there are no gramatical, or spelling errors, technical problems with the wording, but without commenting on the proposal itself. Then this final version is clarked, and put to both houses a the same time for a Vote to be accepted into law.

This would allow for more considered legislation, and allow members of both houses to have more of a debate. Obviously a budget or clauses for emergency legislation would needed to be provided for. As well as changes in timetables of how laws are passed etc. However this might be a better system, which would honestly bring more impact to both of the houses and might also encorage more participation in houses too, as it would be where debates and voting takes place, not just showing up to vote.

Obviously this is my inital thoughts on this, but i think its an interesting concept to suggest here so at least it can be discussed

[Ian Plätschisch]

May I be reminded of recent instances of the King vetoing legislation because of something that the Ziu (or a clerk thereof) could have caught by itself had it spent more time on review? In my recollection he usually vetoes bills he thinks are inOrganic based on his own understanding of the Organic Law, which, while not a bad thing to do (though it would help if he could make comments in the Hopper from time to time), is unlikely to be anticipated.

Could anyone be persuaded to be the Clerk of Ziu? It seems to me that anyone with the requisite eagle eye would serve Talossa more effectively by just being an MZ that also happens to proofread bills.

As for having the two houses vote separately, this only has a hope of being practical if small changes (ie, the kind of thing that needs to be fixed to avoid a Royal veto) can be made to the bill between readings without the first house having to vote on it again. Of course, that leaves the trouble of determining what constitutes a small change. I don't think such a change would be worth the time sacrificed: if we do separate the voting, I can easily imagine the house that votes on a bill first giving even less scrutiny to a bill than it does now because, hey, the other house can fix it when it gets to them.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jun 30, 2019 18:53:33 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

I don't think such a change would be worth the time sacrificed:

Some might argue that requiring more time to pass for legislation to go through would be a good thing, quality-wise, in and of itself.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I very much like this line of thought and hope we can work through it. I'd point out, though, that one problem with your first suggestion, Miestra, is just that no such person exists (at least, as far as I am aware). Before we could consider this a viable option, we'd probably want to figure out if any candidates are out there.

I'd suggest another factor to further consider: our politics are no longer very competitive. For the past five years, the government has been run by the same few parties, except for one exception. Certainly the MRPT and FDT have competed with each other, leading to some churn, but the same general group of people has been in charge for a very long time. Thus, bills tend to pass or fail by margins of a hundred votes or so, with rare exceptions. Will a bill pass or fail? Well, it depends largely on what the governing parties decide, and that decision is heavily dominated by their leadership.

I'm not suggesting any wrongdoing. The RUMP was in continual power during the preceding six years, after all, and I don't think that was through any wrongdoing, either. But it's a fact that the next election will almost certainly lead to a government run by some combination of the FDT, MRPT, or AMP (which is composed solely of people who previously belonged to the FDT or MRPT, as best I am aware).

The biggest legislation is agreed-upon in binding documents ahead of time, so that pretty much locks it in. That stuff's not going to get fundamental criticism, except maybe in private conversations among the bigwigs. So that puts paid to harsh scrutiny.

And for other bills... well, there's not really a lot of incentive to closely read, argue about, or critique a bill that's been blessed by the Powers That Be, is there? I don't think there's any corruption at work, I just think that people in the FDT are going to be inclined to support a bill offered by an ally.

I want to be really clear and say again, explicitly, that I'm not accusing anyone of anything wrong here. But I think it's worth noting that one of the reasons that there's not harsh scrutiny of a lot of bills is that such scrutiny tends to only be done for fun, since there's little incentive to do so. People trust their buddies and they're disposed to like their ideas.

Anyway, being more constructive, I'll also say that we probably shouldn't go to a two-month legislative cycle because it will make the problem worse -- after the third Clark, any vetoed bill will be dead without hope of passage!

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

You know, I'd really like it if you could refer to my part as the "FreeDems", rather than the acronym, just as a matter of courtesy.

Anyway: point taken about the "manpower" issue with naming a Clerk of the Ziu. But that's a problem with everything in Talossa. (May I say at this point that if people have criticisms with the Government not being more active, may I just point out that the incumbents are the most active people who are available for the job!)

As to lack of competitive politics: firstly, I have to disagree with an argument you've made before, that the current minority-government situation is comparable to the previous "rotating coalition" governments, or the one-party RUMP governments before that (or the one-party CLP or PC governments stretching back into the mists of time). Case in point: 53RZ16, which was proposed by the AMP leader (who supports the current Government on the VoC) but which failed. I personally abstained on it. This should be proof that a support party for a minority government is not the same thing as a coalition partner.

I also want to know what "legislation is agreed-upon in binding documents ahead of time". No such binding documents pertain to the current support arrangements between the Free Democrats and our support parties right now. There is an agreement that we want to get the Still Into This Amendment passed, but that's an informal agreement based on the fact that the parties who support OrgLaw reform might never again have a 3/4 majority in the Cosa.

Anyway, by your own standards, Sir Alexandreu, when was Talossan politics "competitive"? And what was the standard of legislation like at the time?

I would also argue that if you're convinced that the next Government will, de facto, exclude the RUMP, I wonder whether this indicates a lack of confidence in your party's future, or a lack of confidence in your party's ability to make a better proposal to lead a government to smaller parties. Ask yourself what the RUMP did right during that election when you got on the "rotating coalition" carousel - and what happened to end it.

As to the extended legislative calendar making vetos absolute, then we can simply allow vetoes to be overridden on subsequent Clarks?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 30, 2019 19:04:12 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Jun 30, 2019 18:53:33 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

I don't think such a change would be worth the time sacrificed:

Some might argue that requiring more time to pass for legislation to go through would be a good thing, quality-wise, in and of itself.

I suspect the more likely outcome is that it would encourage people not to engage until closer to the end. I assume most legislators only have a certain amount of time they can spend on proofing bills; messing with the timetable would probably only change when that time is spent.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 30, 2019 19:05:06 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

AMP (which is composed solely of people who previously belonged to the FDT or MRPT, as best I am aware).

FYI, there are three AMP members who were not previously members of either of those parties (granted, none of them are around particularly often, but they do exist).

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jun 30, 2019 19:22:32 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Jun 30, 2019 19:04:12 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Some might argue that requiring more time to pass for legislation to go through would be a good thing, quality-wise, in and of itself.

I suspect the more likely outcome is that it would encourage people not to engage until closer to the end. I assume most legislators only have a certain amount of time they can spend on proofing bills; messing with the timetable would probably only change when that time is spent.

If this is the case, that people never look at bills until they are just about to become law, why do we bother with the Hopper?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 30, 2019 19:38:46 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Jun 30, 2019 19:22:32 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

I suspect the more likely outcome is that it would encourage people not to engage until closer to the end. I assume most legislators only have a certain amount of time they can spend on proofing bills; messing with the timetable would probably only change when that time is spent.

If this is the case, that people never look at bills until they are just about to become law, why do we bother with the Hopper?

The Hopper is where all of the editing takes place; of course I would not want to eliminate that. However, the proposal is not to require that bills spend a longer time in the Hopper, but to extend the voting period. Once voting starts there is little that can be changed about a bill, so why would extending voting be of any use? Are you saying that a longer voting period would give legislators more time to read the bill very closely to decide whether or not to pass it? That is possibly true, although I have my reservations about whether that would actually occur. Also, because most bills in Talossa are pretty low-stakes, I would say it is probably better in terms of increasing engagement to have a faster timetable and then go back and make fixes later if need be.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jun 30, 2019 19:22:30 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

You know, I'd really like it if you could refer to my part as the "FreeDems", rather than the acronym, just as a matter of courtesy.

Anyway: point taken about the "manpower" issue with naming a Clerk of the Ziu. But that's a problem with everything in Talossa. (May I say at this point that if people have criticisms with the Government not being more active, may I just point out that the incumbents are the most active people who are available for the job!)

As to lack of competitive politics: firstly, I have to disagree with an argument you've made before, that the current minority-government situation is comparable to the previous "rotating coalition" governments, or the one-party RUMP governments before that (or the one-party CLP or PC governments stretching back into the mists of time). Case in point: 53RZ16, which was proposed by the AMP leader (who supports the current Government on the VoC) but which failed. I personally abstained on it. This should be proof that a support party for a minority government is not the same thing as a coalition partner.

I also want to know what "legislation is agreed-upon in binding documents ahead of time". No such binding documents pertain to the current support arrangements between the Free Democrats and our support parties right now. There is an agreement that we want to get the Still Into This Amendment passed, but that's an informal agreement based on the fact that the parties who support OrgLaw reform might never again have a 3/4 majority in the Cosa.

Anyway, by your own standards, Sir Alexandreu, when was Talossan politics "competitive"? And what was the standard of legislation like at the time?

I would also argue that if you're convinced that the next Government will, de facto, exclude the RUMP, I wonder whether this indicates a lack of confidence in your party's future, or a lack of confidence in your party's ability to make a better proposal to lead a government to smaller parties. Ask yourself what the RUMP did right during that election when you got on the "rotating coalition" carousel - and what happened to end it.

As to the extended legislative calendar making vetos absolute, then we can simply allow vetoes to be overridden on subsequent Clarks?

I'll first note that I went to considerable length to make it clear that I was not attacking you or yours, and that there was no wrongdoing on your part. My claims were these alone:
1. Talossan politics is not very competitive right now.
2. Because the most major legislation gets discussed in private then endorsed as a bloc, it seldom undergoes harsh scrutiny from anyone in a position to affect the outcome.
3. People tend to look more favorably on legislation proposed by their buddies, so the lack of competition also leads to less scrutiny in that way, too.

As a response, you argue that the current government is different than preceding coalition governments. And that's true, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Talossan politics is not very competitive right now. The fact that the Minister of Immigration offered a bill that failed doesn't really seem like it contradicts that much. I'm not saying that there's some sort of absolute rule or law that the coalition parties are enforcing. I'm saying that Ian P probably has a seat in Cabinet for however long he pleases. So do you. So does Luc. Unless the Powers That Be decide to make a willful break, that's likely to continue to be true for the near future.

Obviously not everyone gets the position or policies they want. The finer details vary, and each election's scrum decides who gets to grab the brass ring at the top. The exact nature of the coalition -- MRPT-led, Free Democrat-led, Free Democrat minority -- doesn't much matter. I think my first point holds.

As a response, you also note that this particular term, there's no formal agreement on legislation. But there's an informal agreement. And there have been a bunch of bills in the past that were agreed-upon, either in specific or as an agreed-upon goal that the coalition backed. I think my second point also holds.

As a response, you also demand to know when Talossan politics was competitive. Well, that was probably when the outcome was in doubt. Midway through the RUMP dominance, the PP rose to power and came close to winning a majority. It collapsed, alas, when its leader was called away. But that was a competitive election. And a few years ago, things were competitive here, too. They're just not competitive now. They were only briefly competitive when there was a personal conflict among the Powers That Be that broke through the agreement that usually exist to air all grievances in private (so as to try to generally preserve, ahem, an appearance of solidarity!)

To reiterate: politics was competitive when the general outcome was in doubt. It's not in doubt any more.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jun 30, 2019 20:45:53 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Because the most major legislation gets discussed in private then endorsed as a bloc, it seldom undergoes harsh scrutiny from anyone in a position to affect the outcome.

No it doesn't, in this Cosa. If as a bloc you mean "by the three pro-Government parties", this has no truth to it at all. Apart from Still Into This, which was written two years ago, none of the legislation proposed in the current Cosa was pre-arranged by the pro-Government parties.

The fact that the Minister of Immigration offered a bill that failed doesn't really seem like it contradicts that much. I'm not saying that there's some sort of absolute rule or law that the coalition parties are enforcing. I'm saying that Ian P probably has a seat in Cabinet for however long he pleases. So do you. So does Luc.

Well, you've already demonstrated that you don't actually understand how the current Government works. Ian P is the Permanent Secretary of Immigration, not a Cabinet Minister (he has in fact tendered his resignation, and we're currently looking for a replacement). Luc da Schir has no role in the Government at all.

This is what "support parties outside the Government" means. These party leaders are not in Cabinet. To avoid further misunderstanding, the Cabinet is:

My good self, Seneschál/Culture
Munditenens Tresplet, Distáin/Finance
Viteu Marcianüs, Attorney-General
Sevastáin Pinátsch, STUFF
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, Foreign Minister (acting Interior Minister)
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă, Interior Minister (currently on personal leave).

Four Free Democrat ministers, one Independent minister, one minister who was Independent when named to Cabinet but has since accepted AMP Cosâ seats. Add to this something I noted previously but didn't take up: the MRPT doesn't exist any more. Please get your facts straight before trying to explain things.

You appear to have a totally wrong idea of how the current Government works.

To reiterate: politics was competitive when the general outcome was in doubt. It's not in doubt any more.

Let me just confirm what you're saying here. You are saying that you didn't believe, going into the last election, that the RUMP had any chance of being in government?

But just to confirm: please show how during the RUMP/PP rivalry, the quality of legislation was improved. It really sounds like you've got no evidence for your supposed link between "uncompetitive politics" and weak legislation.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jun 30, 2019 20:27:47 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

The Hopper is where all of the editing takes place; of course I would not want to eliminate that. However, the proposal is not to require that bills spend a longer time in the Hopper, but to extend the voting period.

So would you support bills having to spend longer in the Hopper?

How about separate Cosâ and Senäts Hoppers?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jun 30, 2019 21:22:45 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Jun 30, 2019 20:45:53 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Because the most major legislation gets discussed in private then endorsed as a bloc, it seldom undergoes harsh scrutiny from anyone in a position to affect the outcome.

No it doesn't, in this Cosa. If as a bloc you mean "by the three pro-Government parties", this has no truth to it at all. Apart from Still Into This, which was written two years ago, none of the legislation proposed in the current Cosa was pre-arranged by the pro-Government parties.

The fact that the Minister of Immigration offered a bill that failed doesn't really seem like it contradicts that much. I'm not saying that there's some sort of absolute rule or law that the coalition parties are enforcing. I'm saying that Ian P probably has a seat in Cabinet for however long he pleases. So do you. So does Luc.

Well, you've already demonstrated that you don't actually understand how the current Government works. Ian P is the Permanent Secretary of Immigration, not a Cabinet Minister (he has in fact tendered his resignation, and we're currently looking for a replacement). Luc da Schir has no role in the Government at all.

This is what "support parties outside the Government" means. These party leaders are not in Cabinet. To avoid further misunderstanding, the Cabinet is:

My good self, Seneschál/Culture
Munditenens Tresplet, Distáin/Finance
Viteu Marcianüs, Attorney-General
Sevastáin Pinátsch, STUFF
Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, Foreign Minister (acting Interior Minister)
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă, Interior Minister (currently on personal leave).

Four Free Democrat ministers, two Independent ministers. Add to this something I noted previously but didn't take up: the MRPT doesn't exist any more. Please get your facts straight before trying to explain things.

You appear to have a totally wrong idea of how the current Government works.

To reiterate: politics was competitive when the general outcome was in doubt. It's not in doubt any more.

Let me just confirm what you're saying here. You are saying that you didn't believe, going into the last election, that the RUMP had any chance of being in government?

But just to confirm: please show how during the RUMP/PP rivalry, the quality of legislation was improved. It really sounds like you've got no evidence for your supposed link between "uncompetitive politics" and weak legislation.

I'm aware of Ian's role. I'm aware of who is in Government. I'm aware that the finer points of who holds what job have changed from one term to another. And I'm also aware that the MRPT holds 23 seats. You keep disputing these details as though they detract from my overall point, though. They're barely relevant. The central point is that elections are not competitive. Do you dispute that? Do you think the current musical chairs matters? Why do you keep avoiding that central question?

Do you think there's a significant chance that you won't remain in Government, for example, next term (if you want to remain, that is)? You've been in the Cabinet for five years with one break.

Your last question is a very fair one, though, and I salute you for it. Was the legislation being offered better at times when the country was more competitive?

I'd suggest it probably was. The 39th-41st Cosas were pretty productive and good, with the creation of the whole legal profession (with lawyerly bar stuff and habeas corpus requirements actually coming into existence), the creation of the census, the creation of the Magistracy, the establishing of activity reports, the birth of TAID, all of our existing privacy laws, and the first required posting of Ziu votes. And that's just the stuff that passed -- a lot of big ideas died. Of course, that's three whole terms, but I think that's a pretty remarkable run. And more to the point, almost all of that stuff was good and necessary legislation that has lasted right up until now, mostly unchanged (excepting the Magistracy, which was almost created against last term, and TAID, which is now official government policy... both of which kind of prove my point).

Well, whatever. I don't think I'm going to convince you, so I'm going to stop spinning my wheels. You're in charge -- I'll leave you to it.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jun 30, 2019 21:50:25 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

And I'm also aware that the MRPT holds 23 seats.

The MRPT doesn't exist any more. Lüc da Schir, maybe you can explain the current situation to this weird man?

The central point is that elections are not competitive. Do you dispute that? Do you think the current musical chairs matters? Why do you keep avoiding that central question?

a) Yes, I do dispute that.
b) You're right that these are all side issues. What I find infuriating is that you retail a completely wrong narrative of how the current Cosa functions to support your "competitive politics" thesis, but I think it more important that you not be allowed to simply make up history and have it accepted because none can be bothered arguing with you. You're like that postman character out of Cheers. Let's state it again for the record: Ian Plätschisch and Luc are not in Cabinet. The legislation passed by this Cosa so far has not been agreed on by the pro-government parties before being brought to the Hopper (except Still Into This).

Do you think there's a significant chance that you won't remain in Government, for example, next term (if you want to remain, that is)?

Of course there's a chance. Look, if the AMP and ModRadsUnite parties wanted to, they could vote NO on the next VoC, and if the subsequent election held the same result, form a coalition / minority-govt agreement with the RUMP. Why would they not do that? Do you think Ian P and Luc love me that deep-down much? (If they did we'd all be in the same party.)

===

Leaving aside all that, I suppose your contention is consistent with your previously-expressed beliefs that Talossa was at its best in at some time post-KR1 and before Reunision - the time when you became a citizen, go figure. You can't prove that in any way that convinces anyone else, though.

You are also approaching a criticism of proportional representation as a whole - that it's impossible to "vote out" any party from government. I am remembering my party's German namesake, which stayed in power for some megaboss number of years (+20) by switching coalition partners, making its leader semi-permanent Foreign Minister. So when you say "competitive", I honestly think what you really mean is "two-party system".