Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 24, 2012 7:31:46 GMT -6
Im not sure, I think the government consists of 1 party: the RUMP. Which means the CeR and CSPP both still consider themselves to be opposition parties and the non-RUMP government members dont represent their party in the government. Im not sure though. Maybe Im wrong in which case V is right and the government can expect them to vote Üc. But I would argue both parties would have gotten a rather bad deal.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jul 24, 2012 7:38:03 GMT -6
In some systems it's possible to divide the legislative and executive branches entirely. An example of this is pre-Revolutionary France in which there was no parliament for executives to answer to. Of course, that can't apply here because the appointment of the Seneschal is linked to the legislative influence of a party within the Cosa.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2012 7:41:15 GMT -6
Im not sure, I think the government consists of 1 party: the RUMP. Which means the CeR and CSPP both still consider themselves to be opposition parties and the non-RUMP government members dont represent their party in the government. Im not sure though. Maybe Im wrong in which case V is right and the government can expect them to vote Üc. But I would argue both parties would have gotten a rather bad deal. Unless there is some agreement between parties, individual MCs can act as they see fit outside of the governing party. However, individuals who are Cabinet members who also happen to be members of an opposition party should always vote YES on the VOC. I'm not saying that you cannot vote against the governing party's legislation; I'm saying that if you vote no on a VOC, you are voting against something of which you, personally, are a part. If you do not have confidence in the government's ability to govern, then vote no on the VOC, but also do not be part of that government.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 24, 2012 7:46:51 GMT -6
But if your bound to the government, you are not part of the opposition. I would say if the RUMP demands ministers to vote UC, they cannot be representing a opposition party in the cosa.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jul 24, 2012 7:56:39 GMT -6
Im not sure, I think the government consists of 1 party: the RUMP. Which means the CeR and CSPP both still consider themselves to be opposition parties and the non-RUMP government members dont represent their party in the government. Im not sure though. Maybe Im wrong in which case V is right and the government can expect them to vote Üc. But I would argue both parties would have gotten a rather bad deal. I would disagree with you - the government consists of 5 political parties. Each party is sending representatives to the Cosa. 1 party is sending enough members to have a majority of votes in the Cosa. I also disagree that one gives up their party representation when taking a cabinet position. I believe it's just the opposite - they represent their party in the overall working of the Government. They can always disagree with what the Prime Minister suggests - reflecting on their own personal values when they perform their duties. If there is a conflict, they of course can resign.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 24, 2012 8:01:52 GMT -6
Im not sure, I think the government consists of 1 party: the RUMP. Which means the CeR and CSPP both still consider themselves to be opposition parties and the non-RUMP government members dont represent their party in the government. Im not sure though. Maybe Im wrong in which case V is right and the government can expect them to vote Üc. But I would argue both parties would have gotten a rather bad deal. I would disagree with you - the government consists of 5 political parties. Each party is sending representatives to the Cosa. 1 party is sending enough members to have a majority of votes in the Cosa. I also disagree that one gives up their party representation when taking a cabinet position. I believe it's just the opposite - they represent their party in the overall working of the Government. They can always disagree with what the Prime Minister suggests - reflecting on their own personal values when they perform their duties. If there is a conflict, they of course can resign. So would you say this is a RUMP/CeR/CSPP coalition government or are the CeR and CSPP opposition parties. I dont think an MC can be required to be loyal to the government and to an opposition party at the same time. Ofcourse, if the governing parties have no problem with opposition members being part of the government, opposition members can still become ministers. But in the government they wouldnt represent their party and in the cosa they wouldnt represent the government. Im not against persons being a member of the government and an MC for the opposition, but I dont think MCs for the opposition should represent the government in the cosa. That by itself is already a conflict.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jul 24, 2012 8:19:39 GMT -6
"So would you say this is a RUMP/CeR/CSPP coalition government or are the CeR and CSPP opposition parties."
And there in ( to me ) lies the crux of the matter.
I don't believe that any person that isn't a member of the RUMP party is an "opposition" member. (Except Miestrâ Schivâ. She will oppose anything and everything that the RUMP does, just because it's all about her).
I also don't believe that just because you are working in an Cabinet position, or that as an MC voting "Per" on a RUMP sponsored Act makes you a "Coalition" .
For example, in the USA , a recent Secretary of Defense was Mr Roberts Gates. He was appointed by President Bush, but also served under President Obama. He also is a Republican. I would not say he was an opposition or coalition Secretary. I would say that he was "Bipartisan".
So, if a member of a non-RUMP party accepted an Office, or voted for a RUMP sponsored Act, they would be showing "Bipartisan" support for the government.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 24, 2012 8:37:14 GMT -6
Well, even though the MRP has voted Üc all the time last cosa (I dont know yet how all the new MC's think about this, but Im guessing were not very likely to start voting NON unless the RUMP really starts screwing things up), and even though RUMP bills have been sponsored by MRP(T) members before, I would still say the MRPT is an opposition party. Not opposition in the US republican "we dont care whatever happens to the country as long as we succeed in getting Obama out" sense of the word, but prepared to cooperate when we think its good for Talossa.
But if you require the CSPP MC's to be loyal to the government without giving the CSPP anything, not even credit for being a government party, that may or may not be a good deal for the individual ministers, it is definitively is not a good deal for the CSPP and my advise to the CSPP would be to reject that deal. Why cant these CSPP and CeR ministers help out without giving up being able to decide on the VoC based on what they think is good for Talossa, their party and the voters of their party? Once again, this is all different when not only these individuals become ministers, but also the CSPP as a party becomes a part of the government.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jul 24, 2012 8:48:33 GMT -6
Why cant these CSPP and CeR ministers help out without giving up being able to decide on the VoC based on what they think is good for Talossa, their party and the voters of their party? To me, a VoC is a vote for the whole government, as a single entity. If a Cabinet Member votes "No", they are saying that the whole government, including their office, needs to be removed from Office. I would say if they do decided to vote No, as is their right, they should also resign from their Cabinet Office, also. ( This is purely my opinion, and does not reflect the Official stance of the RUMP).
|
|
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 8:59:49 GMT -6
Why cant these CSPP and CeR ministers help out without giving up being able to decide on the VoC based on what they think is good for Talossa, their party and the voters of their party? To me, a VoC is a vote for the whole government, as a single entity. If a Cabinet Member votes "No", they are saying that the whole government, including their office, needs to be removed from Office. I would say if they do decided to vote No, as is their right, they should also resign from their Cabinet Office, also. ( This is purely my opinion, and does not reflect the Official stance of the RUMP).I agree. If one votes NON on the VOC in a government of which s/he is a part of and said government survives the VOC, then the NON voter should consider his/her position in the Cabinet and retire. If one has no confidence or faith in the job s/he is doing and that of one's cabinet colleagues then one really must ask themselves what are they doing there. That said, if s/he doesn't retire, s/he may be asked to do so by the PM or be sacked.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Jul 24, 2012 9:06:18 GMT -6
If one votes NON on the VOC in a government of which s/he is a part of and said government survives the VOC, then the NON voter should consider his/her position in the Cabinet and retire. If one has no confidence or faith in the job s/he is doing and that of one's cabinet colleagues then one really must ask themselves what are they doing there. That said, if s/he doesn't retire, s/he may be asked to do so by the PM or be sacked. PER on that !
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on Jul 24, 2012 9:18:21 GMT -6
"So would you say this is a RUMP/CeR/CSPP coalition government or are the CeR and CSPP opposition parties." And there in ( to me ) lies the crux of the matter. I don't believe that any person that isn't a member of the RUMP party is an "opposition" member. An Opposition member is one who's not part of the Majority that backs the Government by definition. " And there in ( to me ) lies the crux of the matter." You cannot compare apples and bananas. The USA are a Presidential System where the Executive doesn't depends on the Legislative: they are completely separated. Talossa is a Parliamentary System where the Executive isn't fully indipendent and depends on the Legislative: it's not possibile to separate the two as they were two different things. You cannot be a member of the Cabinet while voting against the Cabinet. An opposition party can of course vote on government-sponsored bill (but usually the don't vote UC on VOC, voting on government-sponsored bill is one thing, supporting the Cabinet in a VOC is a completely different one: if you say YES on VOC you are supposed to enter in Coalition with the Gov and switching from the Opposition to the Majority... Here a great problem is the absence of the Austenéu option on VOC). But a party cannot vote NO while having one of its members INSIDE the Cabinet, because this party it's supposed to be in Coalition: if they vote no they switch from the Majority to the Opposition and all their party members if they still want to be such, they have to leave the Cabinet. Talossa is a parliamentary system, and in parliamentary system Legislative and Executive are not two separate worlds, they depends on each other, and the Executive derives from the Legislative.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2012 9:24:19 GMT -6
An opposition party can of course vote on government-sponsored bill (but usually the don't vote UC on VOC, voting on government-sponsored bill is one thing, supporting the Cabinet in a VOC is a completely different one: if you say YES on VOC you are supposed to enter in Coalition with the Gov and switching from the Opposition to the Majority... Here a great problem is the absence of the Austenéu option on VOC). But a party cannot vote NO while having one of its members INSIDE the Cabinet, because this party it's supposed to be in Coalition: if they vote no they switch from the Majority to the Opposition and all their party members if they still want to be such, they have to leave the Cabinet. Talossa is a parliamentary system, and in parliamentary system Legislative and Executive are not two separate worlds, they depends on each other, and the Executive derives from the Legislative. Most of us are in agreement with you. The only exception I'm making is that in Talossa, merely appointing a member of an Opposition to the Cabinet does not denote coalition, as no formal or informal agreement exists. The only person required to vote for the government is that person in government. I agree with you on everything else, however.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 24, 2012 9:26:36 GMT -6
Well, I feel safe in thinking that if a Cosa member of the CSPP votes NON on the VoC that Lundescu won't be fired from his cabinet position, based on the fact that MinImm is a non-political post. That said, like Gluc, we don't plan on voting NON just for the sake of voting NON. The government will need to convince me that they are doing a bad job first.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 24, 2012 9:28:33 GMT -6
An opposition party can of course vote on government-sponsored bill (but usually the don't vote UC on VOC, voting on government-sponsored bill is one thing, supporting the Cabinet in a VOC is a completely different one: if you say YES on VOC you are supposed to enter in Coalition with the Gov and switching from the Opposition to the Majority... Here a great problem is the absence of the Austenéu option on VOC). But a party cannot vote NO while having one of its members INSIDE the Cabinet, because this party it's supposed to be in Coalition: if they vote no they switch from the Majority to the Opposition and all their party members if they still want to be such, they have to leave the Cabinet. Talossa is a parliamentary system, and in parliamentary system Legislative and Executive are not two separate worlds, they depends on each other, and the Executive derives from the Legislative. Most of us are in agreement with you. The only exception I'm making is that in Talossa, merely appointing a member of an Opposition to the Cabinet does not denote coalition, as no formal or informal agreement exists. The only person required to vote for the government is that person in government. I agree with this. The CSPP is not in government just because Lundquist is serving in an apolitical cabinet post.
|
|