|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2012 22:20:07 GMT -6
Not really in talossa. Your party can still votes as it sees fit except for t he voc.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 23, 2012 22:21:24 GMT -6
This is an interesting point. My perspective was that, as a member of CeR, I was assuming a position which was separate from my voting activities. Which is to say that if RUMP tried to tell me how to vote (ordering, rather than persuading which is of course fair game) I'd tell them to go pound sand. But I never in a million years would have foreseen such an event, especially if ZRT had accepted one or more Cabinet positions. I agree. Your cabinet post is separate from your cosa post. How you vote in the Cosa should be based on CeR stances and not RUMP's, I think anyway. Your cabinet post means your the head honcho, the go-to guy, on that particular field. In your instance, foreign affairs. You will lead the charge on all matters foreign. Nothing to do with legislation. Most cabinet projects don't even come close to legislative business. I also disagree with V about the unwritten agreement on the VOC. Otherwise, what is the point in having a VOC? A VOC can only fail is if dissent in the governing party takes place. Not that I ever heard of. + Come to think of it. The PM is supposed to act on advice of his ministers. So, theoretically, it's the other way round from what is asked here. ie: the Seneschal should back Ministerial proposals. edit, spelling and slight addition
|
|
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 Jul 23, 2012 22:31:14 GMT -6
Not that I ever heard of. The tradition in parliamentary democracies is that all members of the Cabinet will back collective Cabinet decisions in parliamentary voting and in public statements. These proposals might not be those coming from the Seneschál or the majority party in Cabinet, but you'd expect most of them to be. However, the Cabinet may give individual ministers free reign to propose or vote on legislation on matters which aren't part of Government policy or projects. For example, the UK government allowed Cabinet ministers to campaign on both sides, according to personal preferences, on the 1975 referendum on staying in the EEC. I was just making sure that "Christ is King and abortion is bad mmmkay" were issues on which the Seneschál was fine with letting Minister Blasiüs go on solo runs.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 23, 2012 22:35:21 GMT -6
Not that I ever heard of. The tradition in parliamentary democracies is that all members of the Cabinet will back collective Cabinet decisions in parliamentary voting and in public statements. These proposals might not be those coming from the Seneschál or the majority party in Cabinet, but you'd expect most of them to be. However, the Cabinet may give individual ministers free reign to propose or vote on legislation on matters which aren't part of Government policy or projects. For example, the UK government allowed Cabinet ministers to campaign on both sides, according to personal preferences, on the 1975 referendum on staying in the EEC. I was just making sure that "Christ is King and abortion is bad mmmkay" were issues on which the Seneschál was fine with letting Minister Blasiüs go on solo runs. Yeah, your right. However, (and this is only an observation) in Talossa the cabinet and legislature are worlds apart. I don't think cabinet members in Talossa are required to follow any party parliamentary line. There is much evidence to support that.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Jul 23, 2012 23:37:42 GMT -6
I think that the concept of parliamentary democracy where the government is formed in parliament and need the support of the parliament is something not really understood by those who lives in presidential systems where the executive is not dependant from the legislature.
Usually in parliamentary system Cabinet members are of course supposed to back cabinet proposal because they are part pf the gov, and they represent their party inside the Gov. Party with own members in Gov enters in governing coalition and they are supposed to back most of the Gov projects and bills, and they had to if this are part of the program or VOC. If party don't want to be in the gov coalition, than those members who are in the cabinet are expelled.
You as a member or as a party cannot be in the gov and do what you like in the parliament: Parliament and Government aren't completely separate bodies because the executive must have the confidence of the legislative.
This is the basic concept of parliamentarism and we cannot pretend to be one acting de facto like we're not.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 24, 2012 0:09:11 GMT -6
Of recent years, the RUMP has always tried to put talented members of other parties in positions where they can effect some serious good for their country. I believe the basic reasoning is that it's a shame to let talent go to waste, when it could be helping Talossa. Thus, the general procedure has just been an expectation that the parties of those represented won't vote against the government's vote of confidence. This is because many of the roles of government are administrative, and can easily be fulfilled without partisanship or politics - working with immigrants or making flyers to promote the country are activities that every party supports.
To me, this makes sense for the country: Talossa benefits from the most enthused and competent people of the whole nation. It also makes sense for the opposition, at least as far as I can see: it allows members of the opposition to demonstrate that they're competent and practical, and gives them some real achievements to showcase. In this latter case, it actually seems pretty generous to me: were it not for this RUMP policy, then next election we would be able to justly and truthfully say that the CeR or CSPP have no experience in actually running the country and getting things done - "can you trust the unproven blah blah blah."
Of course, it also benefits the RUMP to some extent: it allows the government to be the best government that can be mustered. But opposition to the RUMP has been mostly ideological rather than practical; criticism isn't that immigration is incompetent, but rather that we should open up to micronations, etc. So on balance, this seems better for the country and the opposition than it is for the RUMP.
|
|
Dan Meriula
Talossan since 7-7-2012
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 22
|
Post by Dan Meriula on Jul 24, 2012 0:58:41 GMT -6
I'm going to bring this conversation back.
I am very happy to just join and be the Minister of Home Affairs. I hope I do a good job!
Thank you again.
|
|
Ian da Bitour
Talossan since 3-11-2006
President of Royal Bank and Post
Posts: 382
|
Post by Ian da Bitour on Jul 24, 2012 0:59:49 GMT -6
Congratulations to the newly formed government.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 24, 2012 2:34:45 GMT -6
Congratulations to all Cabinet members. The Seneschál was kind enough to offer cabinet seats to ZRT members in this reshuffle. In accordance with our principles that Talossa needs an Opposition which will put a contrary opinion to the Government, rather than a cosy consensus which has the effect of marginalising and delegitimising dissent, we turned these down. In addition, joining a government with another party which has a secure majority will leave any minority in the Cabinet no leverage. It is disappointing that no other party has made the same principled stand. Although one might ask, to what extent will cxhn. Blasiüs be allowed to go on with his quixotic legislative solo-runs without dragging the whole Cabinet into it? So it falls to the ZRT, and the ZRT alone, to provide an alternative Government and an alternative vision of the future. Game on. I should note that none of these new ministers is actually a member of the MRPT. True, Stéafan d'Unmortadel did vote for us, and he is more than welcome to join the MRPT. You're right in the sense that the MRPT has not taken a principled stance against members joining the government. BTW, I think, unless theres some kind of coalition agreement, ministers who are also MC's for other parties than the RUMP are free to vote against the government.
|
|
Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN
Puisne Justice; Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar; Cunstaval to Florencia
Dame & Former Seneschal
Posts: 1,157
Talossan Since: 4-5-2010
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on Jul 24, 2012 5:24:28 GMT -6
Congrats to all the new Ministers. I wish you all the very best for the upcoming term!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2012 5:40:20 GMT -6
BTW, I think, unless theres some kind of coalition agreement, ministers who are also MC's for other parties than the RUMP are free to vote against the government. Yes and no. There are certain factors to consider, for instance, parties cannot really whip up their members to vote on the party line in Talossa. So individual members may vote down something being put forward by the party. But, when it comes to the VOC, if you're a minister and you vote non on the VOC, you are expected to vacate your seat, as you are effectively saying you have no confidence in the government, of which you are apart.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 24, 2012 6:03:50 GMT -6
BTW, I think, unless theres some kind of coalition agreement, ministers who are also MC's for other parties than the RUMP are free to vote against the government. Yes and no. There are certain factors to consider, for instance, parties cannot really whip up their members to vote on the party line in Talossa. So individual members may vote down something being put forward by the party. But, when it comes to the VOC, if you're a minister and you vote non on the VOC, you are expected to vacate your seat, as you are effectively saying you have no confidence in the government, of which you are apart. Well, as an MC you represent a party, you dont represent the government. So, is this a RUMP government with a few non-RUMP ministers or is this a RUMP/CSPP/CeR coalition government in which the parties together agreed on the government policy? If the former, I would find it strange if CSPP MC's would effectively promise to vote Üc on the VoC without getting anything in return. (For the CSPP, not for themselves). (Not that I have anything against the opposition voting Üc on the VoC. I wouldnt be surprised if most MRPT MC's would vote Üc)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2012 6:35:23 GMT -6
Yes and no. There are certain factors to consider, for instance, parties cannot really whip up their members to vote on the party line in Talossa. So individual members may vote down something being put forward by the party. But, when it comes to the VOC, if you're a minister and you vote non on the VOC, you are expected to vacate your seat, as you are effectively saying you have no confidence in the government, of which you are a part. Well, as an MC you represent a party, you dont represent the government. So, is this a RUMP government with a few non-RUMP ministers or is this a RUMP/CSPP/CeR coalition government in which the parties together agreed on the government policy? If the former, I would find it strange if CSPP MC's would effectively promise to vote Üc on the VoC without getting anything in return. (For the CSPP, not for themselves). (Not that I have anything against the opposition voting Üc on the VoC. I wouldnt be surprised if most MRPT MC's would vote Üc) I'm going to try this again. If you hold a position in the cabinet you are a part of the government. The Vote of Confidence functions to ensure the functionality of the government and to ensure everything lines up. If you are a part of the the government and you vote no, you are effectively saying you have no confidence in the very job that you are assigned to do. Members of the Cabinet simply cannot vote no. If you feel the need to vote no, you must resign your seat. It has nothing to do with being a member of any party or who you represent. You are a part of the very thing you are voting against. As far as proposed legislation and coalition- while having a few cabinet members from the minority parties, it does not necessarily mean the RUMP is in coalition with the party unless an explicit agreement is reached. Nevertheless, if a party is gungho on voting NO on every VOC, I would imagine that party would make it clear to its members that they should not be members of the government. I would venture to say this is the goal of the ZRT but please correct me if I'm wrong. There is still no requirement that the minority party completely endorse the platform of the majority party and the RUMP is most certainly not in the game of forcing smaller parties to vote their way. Edit: stupid typos
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 24, 2012 6:46:04 GMT -6
Well, as an MC you represent a party, you dont represent the government. So, is this a RUMP government with a few non-RUMP ministers or is this a RUMP/CSPP/CeR coalition government in which the parties together agreed on the government policy? If the former, I would find it strange if CSPP MC's would effectively promise to vote Üc on the VoC without getting anything in return. (For the CSPP, not for themselves). (Not that I have anything against the opposition voting Üc on the VoC. I wouldnt be surprised if most MRPT MC's would vote Üc) I'm going to try this again. If you hold a position in the cabinet you are apart of the government. The Vote of Confidence functions to ensure the functionality of the government and to ensure everything lines up. If you are apart of the the government and you vote no, you are effectively saying you have no confidence in the very job that you are assigned to do. Members of the Cabinet simply cannot vote no. If you feel the need to vote no, you must resign your seat. It has nothing to do with being a member of any party or who you represent. You are apart of the very thing you are voting against. It definitively has to do with who your represent. As an MC you represent your party. As minister your loyalty lies with the government, but as an MC it doesnt, unless the party you are representing is a part of the government. Why should MC's chose the government over their party and the voters of that party. The job of MC's is different from the job of a minister and opposition MC's dont have to vote for the government. Im not saying they should vote NON, because they are opposition. I never liked that reasoning. Im just saying the government should not demand support of MC's who inside the cosa are in the opposition, even if they are ministers outside the cosa. BTW, if Talossa would ever have enough active citizens, I think it might be a good idea to prevent MC's from being a minister. At the moment thats not very relevant though. I realize Im talking about how it should be and not about how it is, but I can say that if I were a CSPP MC and I was asked to be a minister and I was told that I would in the cosa have to chose to be loyal to the government instead of my party, which is in the oppostion, I would probably have refused, even if it wouldnt have made a difference as I would probably vote Üc most of the time. If the CSPP would now suddenly promise loyalty to the government, I dont think you can say they are still in the opposition. But they would have gotten a bad deal as the RUMP hasnt made any promises towards the CSPP and the CSPP as a party barely gets credit for being a government party. After all, everyone would probably still call this a RUMP government not a RUMP/CSPP/CeR coalition.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jul 24, 2012 7:26:58 GMT -6
If you, as a part of the government vote against a governmental proposal or piece of legislation you're indicating that the government isn't united or doesn't have a cohesive programme. It would be different if it were indicated that the prospective piece of legislation were a RUMP proposal and not a governmental one (since the government consists of more than one party).
|
|