Improving the quality of legislation

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jul 1, 2019 0:58:38 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

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?

Erschéveþ da Schir still holds 20? Gödafrïeu Airignha just lost three. They registered the name after the main party formally closed up. Remember?

Jul 1, 2019 0:58:38 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

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.

I honestly feel like you're seizing on these differences despite the larger overall truth that the same coalition has been in charge, in one form or another, for most of the last five years. But ok. It probably feels very different to you.

Jul 1, 2019 0:58:38 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

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 Plätschisch and Luc love me that deep-down much? (If they did we'd all be in the same party.)

lol ok. I think it's become apparent that's not going to happen. The same general group of people is going to stay in power for the foreseeable future. Maybe next term the Free Democrats will drop down a few seats, maybe they'll go up. Maybe AMP will grab a whole bunch of seats and Ian will be Seneschal again, and we'll watch some musical chairs as you go back to MinCult for another couple of years solid.

I mean, yes, literally that scenario could happen. But from the outside (if not to you, I guess) it's clear that you guys are going to stay in charge, like you have been for years.

Jul 1, 2019 0:58:38 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

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.

Jun 28, 2019 16:46:36 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Miestra, it is notable how often you argue -- with great passion and verve and occasional cruelty -- against things you wish I had said.

Ok. Well, I tried. Have a good one

[Lüc da Schir]

Urgh, lots of stuff I missed while asleep. Okay, let's start.

Jul 1, 2019 0:58:38 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

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 MRPT died on March 4th 2019 by hand of the current Foreign Minister. It is currently completely defunct.

Me and Erschéveþ decided to stand as independents in the new Cosa; to do so, we ran under Moderate Radicals Arise ("ModRads"), a temporary label. MRA/ModRads is not a party; does not have a leader; does not have a platform; and is not in any way any kind of successor to the MRPT. The only selling point was literally "vote for me because I'm Lüc". That got us over 10%.

MRA was literally just a label to stand for election; once Erschéveþ got as many seats in the Cosa as she could hold (with three to spare, no less), MRA's work was done.

Functionally, we are both sitting as independent moderate radicals (small M, small R), and Erschéveþ is currently supporting the current Government through a confidence and supply agreement that I brokered. Among the conditions were, for example, that the Budget deficit would be addressed through reforming our web hosting arrangements, or that the Cabinet's Code of Conduct be continued and strictly upheld. Miestrâ has so far staunchly upheld the deal and I'm very grateful for that.

Gödafrieu was given seats through negotiations with AMP, but he never showed up. Regardless, he's not affiliated with us.

[Lüc da Schir]

Jul 1, 2019 1:08:25 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Jul 1, 2019 0:58:38 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

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

Erschéveþ da Schir still holds 20? Gödafrïeu Airignha just lost three. They registered the name after the main party formally closed up. Remember?

We only registered ModRads because it would be more recognisable than "IMR", "Independent Moderate Radicals". We had no wish of continuing or reforming the MRPT.

(edit: and also because, as I said many times, I will always be a ModRad, as in small-m moderate radical. Just not a member of the MRPT, for obvious reasons.)

[Lüc da Schir]

Then, as it was said elsewhere, I have been out of Cabinet for a whole year now. I'm serving as Mençei and I'm fine with it. I have no idea about what they say in there, and it was just the same when Ian was PM. And I really doubt there's a seat with my name on it that I can just come in and claim whenever I want.

Can I take issue, though, with the notion that somehow all legislation is agreed upon in advance, Sir Alexandreu Davinescu ?

There are several categories of bills that have been voted on in the Cosa so far:

1) The uncontroversials

Eight bills passed with very little opposition (usually 10 Contras). The first four were in some way Government bills:

- Civil Service (Commissioner Abolition) Bill
- Holidays and Observances Amendment Act (override)
- Budget for the 53rd Cosa
- Still Into This Amendment
- Slimming Down Title I Act
- Linear Terps Act
- Parliamentary Contact Info Accessibility Act
- Trapped Dandelions Act

This includes a Budget, where all of the Cosa voted in favour; Organic reform; and a Veto override by the Government.

2) Government bills with some opposition

Four bills passed seemingly on party lines:

- Fantastic Fusion of Fiova and Florencia Bill, which was actually passed by a majority of RUMP MCs
- Hopper Needs a Sheriff Bill
- Holidays and Observances Amendment Act (first attempt), but the RUMP did support the override
- Leader of the Opposition (Restoration) Bill, which the RUMP was in favour of until the last few days of voting

So out of all non-uncontroversial Government sponsored bills, only one was consistently opposed by the opposition.

3) Opposition bills that failed

Two bills that were presented by the RUMP failed:

- Mega-Amendment, as the government and partners all were onboard SITA (RZ14)
- Witt Moderation Act, as alternative, bipartisan arrangements were worked on (and will be voted on this month?)

In both cases, FreeDem, AMP and Erschéveþ preferred alternative bills, both of which by all accounts are bipartisan and very publicly worked on (so much for backroom deals!).

4) Other bills that failed

- Nationalisation of a Peculiar Wittenberg Act, which was left for dead by Eðo;

- Talossa is Not Wittenberg Act, which was the only bill to attract cross-party support and cross-party opposition.

So yeah, I don't see those backroom deals. By all accounts, most legislation that passed was very uncontroversial. The RUMP ended up supporting all bills that passed except the Hopper Needs a Sheriff Bill and the Leader of the Opposition Bill (and again, you supported that until the very end).

[Lüc da Schir]

And finally, as I've said multiple times, if the RUMP provided a serious alternative then I would have no problem negotiating confidence and supply with you. There's no blood pact that binds the remnants of the old centre-left coalition together in perpetuity. It's just that, presently, the RUMP has literally nothing to offer to a coalition partner; no potential ministers to form a Cabinet (or most thereof), no leader that can be worked with. Given that, and given that Miestrâ gave us exactly what we wanted, it's a no brainer that we chose that particular road.

I'm sure that if AMP got 90 seats next time they would decide carefully on what to do, and the default wouldn't necessarily be a pact with the FreeDems; just like the MRPT would probably have sought to form a minority government itself in 2017-2018, if back then it wasn't imperative for the national mood that we try and form a broader coalition.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Well, once again a civil discussion descended to partisan bickering. But that's what happens when two sides can't even agree on basic reality, let alone what should happen.

Can we get back on the topic of what changes to Ziu procedure might produce better quality legislation - if any?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jul 1, 2019 1:49:49 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

Jul 1, 2019 1:08:25 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Erschéveþ da Schir still holds 20? Gödafrïeu Airignha just lost three. They registered the name after the main party formally closed up. Remember?

We only registered ModRads because it would be more recognisable than "IMR", "Independent Moderate Radicals". We had no wish of continuing or reforming the MRPT.

The technicalities of the MRPT's existence seem beside the point.

Jul 1, 2019 2:47:10 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

Then, as it was said elsewhere, I have been out of Cabinet for a whole year now. I'm serving as Mençei and I'm fine with it. I have no idea about what they say in there, and it was just the same when Ian was PM. And I really doubt there's a seat with my name on it that I can just come in and claim whenever I want.

Can I take issue, though, with the notion that somehow all legislation is agreed upon in advance, Sir Alexandreu Davinescu ?

Sure? I, too, would take issue with such a statement. I only said that major bills have been in the past, either in specific or as a general approach. Those bills will not receive harsh scrutiny from people already pledged to back them. Do you disagree with the statement that I actually made, as opposed to the absolutist straw man?

Jul 1, 2019 2:47:10 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

By all accounts, most legislation that passed was very uncontroversial.

Indeed. If I'm counting right, eight Powers-That-Be-blessed bills passed, half of them with RUMP support, while three RUMP bills failed, and one AMP bill failed.

Jul 1, 2019 2:55:31 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

And finally, as I've said multiple times, if the RUMP provided a serious alternative

lol there it is

Look, guys, I know this sucks to confront. It looks bad, it makes you feel bad, and you interpret it as an attack despite my ardent attempts to try to prevent that. It's a problem but it's not your fault and you did nothing wrong.

But the same general group of people have been in charge for years, and that's not likely to change. Luc, you say that there's not a seat with your name on it, but you are flat-out wrong. And everyone knows it.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 30, 2019 21:25:53 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

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?

Requiring more time in the Hopper might work, although the editing process on most bills is over quite a while before the bill is Clarked already, so requiring even more time in the Hopper may not do much either.

I’m not sure I understand the idea of separate Hoppers. Would only members of that house be able to participate? That doesn’t sound like a good idea.

If the quality of legislation is really an issue, then the best thing to do is probably to have two readings in both houses with small changes allowed in between. However, I’m not yet convinced that the poor quality of legislation is really a problem right now at all.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Might I suggest, Sir Alexandreu Davinescu, that the reason being in Government is not competitive, and the same group of people seem to be in charge every time, is that there are not enough Talossans right now to make it otherwise. Almost any suitably active Talossan would be welcomed into the cabinet at this point (including RUMPers: Etho was MinInt for a while last term). The fact that there are not very many RUMPers in cabinet is a reflection of the sad truth that the RUMP just doesn’t have much to offer in terms of cabinet members. When Lüc made this critique of the RUMP earlier, you seemed to think he said it because he thought you had been attacking him, but I highly doubt it. It just is what it is.

Plenty of new people from every other party have had their turn in cabinet, and the RUMP hasn’t because, well, the RUMP just doesn’t have any new people.

It is true that it is no longer very difficult to get a portfolio, and I think the best way to fix that is to reduce the number of portfolios and then assign other tasks on an ad hoc basis

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Of course I am aware of that. My party is basically just a few active people! But not defensiveness or explanations of what I already said was not anybody's fault does anything to fix the problems that I pointed out that are actually on topilc:

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.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I fail to see how the first point relates to the second two. Surely, even if politics were more competitive, whichever group did end up winning would still be able to decide in private what legislation they wanted if they were so inclined

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I think I've exhausted this topic and convinced exactly no one, so maybe I'm just wrong.

[Lüc da Schir]

Jul 1, 2019 4:46:43 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

The technicalities of the MRPT's existence seem beside the point.

I've been asked to address a mischaracterization and I did.

Sure? I, too, would take issue with such a statement. I only said that major bills have been in the past, either in specific or as a general approach. Those bills will not receive harsh scrutiny from people already pledged to back them. Do you disagree with the statement that I actually made, as opposed to the absolutist straw man?

Yes, I beg to disagree. For once, what major bills are you talking about? SITA was very publicly scrutinised by myself. The only thing I demanded of the Budget was for it to be fiscally responsible and address the web hosting caused deficit, and voting on the Budget is literally the point of any confidence and supply agreement. Are there any other major bills I'm forgetting?

Indeed. If I'm counting right, eight Powers-That-Be-blessed bills passed, half of them with RUMP support, while three RUMP bills failed, and one AMP bill failed.

There's not such a thing as Powers-That-Be-blessed bills outside of the Budget, for obvious reasons, and SITA, and both ended up being uncontroversial anyway. There's no agreement to support each other's bills - case in point, the merger bill was initially opposed by both me and Ian.

Look, guys, I know this sucks to confront. It looks bad, it makes you feel bad, and you interpret it as an attack despite my ardent attempts to try to prevent that. It's a problem but it's not your fault and you did nothing wrong.

But the same general group of people have been in charge for years, and that's not likely to change. Luc, you say that there's not a seat with your name on it, but you are flat-out wrong. And everyone knows it.

I refer you to Ian's comment:

When Lüc made this critique of the RUMP earlier, you seemed to think he said it because he thought you had been attacking him, but I highly doubt it. It just is what it is.

That's literally it. I'm just pointing out that, while there are no alternatives, "the same general group of people" will be in charge by default, moreso now that three party politics is dead. I genuinely didn't feel attacked, I just meant to state my pundit-ish view of the current situation.

[Lüc da Schir]

Jul 1, 2019 9:33:36 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Of course I am aware of that. My party is basically just a few active people! But not defensiveness or explanations of what I already said was not anybody's fault does anything to fix the problems that I pointed out that are actually on topilc:

1. Talossan politics is not very competitive right now.

Yup. It IS not competitive and it IS a problem. Hell, we had a grand total of zero contested Senate races last time, and you can imagine how depressed that made me feel. But I'm not sure what you expect us to do about it.

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.

This is just untrue. As I said, most major legislation, such as SITA, was strongly scrutinised in public.

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.

Hmm, I don't really think that's the case. Maybe intraparty, but I don't think this happens across party lines as frequently as you think. For once, "buddies" have significant policy differences. For instance, why would I want to let Ian cut the size of Cabinet in half? Also recall how I was the only MZ to vote against further appropriations for the chain of office.

Anyway, I certainly won't comment on rubberstamping in other parties, but as for myself I think I'm good on this point. Can't really fix the issue further.

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Jul 1, 2019 9:33:36 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Of course I am aware of that. My party is basically just a few active people! But not defensiveness or explanations of what I already said was not anybody's fault does anything to fix the problems that I pointed out that are actually on topilc:

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.

Like others, I'm not sure what you find unusual about this, or how it could be otherwise in a parliamentary system. It's the same in Sweden. One party manages to stitch together majority support in the parliament and forms a government. Because they command a parliamentary majority, they will get their legislation passed. How would it work otherwise?

The only thing that can break this rut, if rut we were to call it, would be a very energetic Opposition, who would take the proposed bills apart and criticise them, making some MPs falter in their conviction.

And the Opposition in such a parliamentary system will have to fight tooth and claw to convince the parliamentary majority of the excellence of their proposed legislation.

If you don't agree with this description, I'd like to know what you think is wrong with it. How could it be instead?