[Dr House]

It appears that Demosthenes added Gnote's proposed government formation process without any further refinements whatsoever, to the point that it makes me wonder whether he even read it thoroughly enough. This is problematic, because it was never clearly decided exactly what the initial government-forming legislation would be required to contain. Already the SN-RF is talking about obtaining the confidence of parliament by proposing an initial piece of legislation banal enough that the other parties would have no choice but to vote yes on it. This clearly violates the spirit of Gnote's constitution.

5) A party attempting to form government will do so by trying to pass an initial piece of legislation. This piece of legislation must contain some key administrative components that the GM and GM council should iron out. Some suggested components:

- tax rates (personal, corporate, property, sales)
- minimum wage
- banking structure
- age of majority and voting age

The document submitted by gnote was obviously not intended to be published verbatim as Demos did, as evidenced by the bolded part, and since the administrative requirements of government-forming legislation were never specified, other parties seem to assume they can just pass any piece of legislation and count it as a confidence vote.

Why not make it easy? A Child Labour Act

#1 Children (ages 14–18) must not work more than 12 hours a day with an hour lunch break.

*Note* that this will enable employers to run two 'shifts' of child labour each working day and would allow them to employ their adult workers for longer (for the same pay) as compensation for their increased overheads.

#2 Children (ages 9–13) must not work more than 8 hours with an hour lunch break.

#3 Children (ages 9–13) must have two hours of education per day.

#4 Outlaw the employment underground of children under the age of 10 in the mining industry.

*Note* Children can still work 'top side', overground, subject to the restrictions of the Act

#5 Outlaw the employment of children under 9

Provide for routine inspections of factories.

Now I agree with regulating child labor, but it isn't fair that a bill that contains no content regarding a potential SN-RF administration would pass as a confidence motion.

Gentlemen, I submit to you that before a government can be seated or any legislation proposed, the question of exactly what a government-forming legislation is required to contain needs to be addressed by the GM council.

[Vanasalus]

Right before the first election, we as THP, insisted for the necessity of a smaller parliament, tough our pleas were unheard by deaf ears. And the problem was corrected eventually, alas, after it destroyed the first parliament.

And recently… Just before the second election, when some people were self-righteously implementing an interim constitution, we also phrased our concern that a confidence vote is a must. Yet, again, we were refused to be heard.

The concerns of right honorable Dr House motioned above are perfectly legitimate. This interim constitution, in spite of the goodwill of its implementers, is far from being comprehensive and it lacks safe guards against those who might be inclined to exploit loopholes within the document.

Therefore, let me make three observations followed by three suggestions to avoid future frictions and possible questions about legitimacy:

1- The lack of the institution of "confidence vote" is unheard in any democratic constitution around the globe. Unfortunately we do not have it. To by pass the problems which shall arise from this defect: let the first bill, brought by newly formed government to the house, be related to nothing but only asking the confidence of the MPs for new government.

2- The article for minority governments, which hilariously suggest the vote of at least 2/3 of the house for removing the government from office, should never be used by any minority government, if such a government is ever formed.

3- It is crystal clear to me that the greatest matter before this house in next two months is this constitution and the greatest achievement, this house can accomplish, is to implement a comprehensive, democratic and sensible constitution. Very survival of this republic depends on it. So, I recommend a non-partisan gathering of 4 wise men form 4 big parties to come together and start working on drafts of a new constitution, this republic deserves, which will be eventually voted by the parliament to replace the interim constitution.

[FallenRaptor]

That piece of "legislation" was a joke, House.

[Dr House]

I know.

The principle of my post still stands.

[Demosthenes]

Per my PM to House:

I'm sorry but it's just too late to change anything at this time. Again...concerns like this needed to brought up before we even voted, it's not so much that I disagree, but that we just needed *something* to go on. The fact that many find the document flawed in various ways just gives the various parties good starting political platforms, IMO.

I'm not married to that document in any way, but from here out it needs to be changed according to procedure, except in an emergency.

[Gnote]

I am in mild agreement with House on this matter, but I'm wondering if it might make more sense to gradually approach that stage where a more concrete confidence motion is required.

Baby steps?

[Dr House]

Demos, I am not asking for the procedure to be altered. What I'm asking is for a small loose end that will probably cause headaches later (and considering Van's melodramatic thread may be doing so already) to be tied up. Basically, I'm asking that a part of the procedure that Gnote originally asked the GM council to iron out for him, be ironed out.

Essentially, I'm asking that the council take 5 minutes to deliberate on what the parameters of the initial legislation, which forms a government, will be.

As a member of the council, I will weigh in on this while we're at it: I think we should keep it simple. The legislation should require a brief general statement of purpose (in very broad terms what the party intends to pursue if elected) by the party, and a cabinet.

[Gnote]

I don't disagree with House on the need to define what the initial confidence motion should entail, but I wouldn't require any statement of general purpose, and I certainly wouldn't require that the government include its cabinet.

I think we should restrict the requirements of the confidence motion to those things that are fundamentally essential for a working government. The first thing that springs to mind is that in order for a government to work, it needs to be able to pay for the things it does. This, in turn, requires some sort of revenue generating function, which is usually a tax of some sort. As such, I think some clause that speaks to revenue generation should be included in any initial confidence motion.

The problem with this is, essentially, we need some demographic information on our country. It's difficult to determine how much to tax your citizens when you don't know: 1) how many there are; and 2) per capita GDP.


What are the other bare minimum requirements for a working government?

[Dr House]

The problem with this is, essentially, we need some demographic information on our country. It's difficult to determine how much to tax your citizens when you don't know: 1) how many there are; and 2) per capita GDP.

That one's easy. All that info is in the factbook thread.

Population: 20 million (the original version says 50, but it would make no sense for us to be a developed nation in that case considering our industrial profile)

GDP (PPP, Est.): $470 billion
Per Capita: $23,500

Gini coefficient: 49.5%

[Gnote]

Okay, well that solves that.

I'm honestly struggling to think of other things that are fundamentally / inarguable necessary functions of government. You have to pay for the things you do, but beyond that, it's a fairly blank slate.

Some other things that come to mind:

1) Immigration policy - how many and what sorts of people will be allowed to enter your country.

2) Some sort of charter of rights and freedoms.

3) Political divisions - do we have states or province, etc - how are the responsibilities divided between the federal government and the state/local governments.


Essentially, we need to think of things that have relatively little political bias associated with them. So, for instance, social programming should be outside the scope of a REQUIRED confidence motion policy.

[Vanasalus]

Demos, I am not asking for the procedure to be altered. What I'm asking is for a small loose end that will probably cause headaches later (and considering Van's melodramatic thread may be doing so already) to be tied up. Basically, I'm asking that a part of the procedure that Gnote originally asked the GM council to iron out for him, be ironed out.

For the record... My concern about the lack of the concept of "confidence vote" is independent from my concerns about the "minority government", as it is being dictated to the parliament in such form. Therefore, the content of the first bill, regardless of being "ironed-out" or not, offers no whatsoever solution to the latter.

Consider yourself informed.

[Gnote]

Vanasalus,

Read the discussion surrounding the confidence motion. That's all I ask.

If you think that passing a 'weak' confidence motion is all that is required for a minority government to operate, you clearly haven't read the discussion, and have absolutely no understanding of the spirit of my proposal.

[Subversive Rob]

Moreover, surely what is being criticised is exactly what we want to simulate. Minority governments can't pass their full (radical) programmes. Not that any of this matters, because if the fear is that we will then become more radical, well we are a minority so we won't win parliamentary votes.

This looks a lot like sour grapes to me.

[Dr House]

This looks a lot like sour grapes to me.

I assume you're talking about Vansalus...?

[Gnote]

Subversive Rob has, as usual, injected some rationality into the discussion.


We have to let the results of elections dictate the politics. If, figuratively speaking, the 'people' elect a parliament prone to discontent and constant flux, shouldn't that be the order of the day?

A minority government, by definition, lacks the support of the majority at its fundamental roots. It therefore must give way on some of its preferred policies if it wants to govern.

[Dr House]

Regarding our earlier discussion, I really don't think that the government-forming bill should be of a legislative nature. The reason being that one legislative bill is not representative of how the party will vote/govern once in power. A government-forming bill needs to make a broader statement than the stance of the party on a few specific issues.

[Gnote]

The reason being that one legislative bill is not representative of how the party will vote/govern once in power. A government-forming bill needs to make a broader statement than the stance of the party on a few specific issues.

House, I don't think it needs to be either way. The question will eventually boil down to whether we 'want' it to be.

Suppose we were to allow the confidence motion to contain the fluffiest of fluff bills, just for argument's sake. Even if the vote is passed, and then another is passed, and then another, there will eventually come a time where a government will need to either shit or get off the pot. Can you honestly see communists satisfying themselves with child labor and education bills for the full term of their government? If we had a Libertarian government, how long do you think they would be content with an income tax rate somewhere around 40%?

Essentially, any government will have to strike a balance between: 1) staying in government; and 2) accomplishing something. If all you can do is pass fluff, you're not going to achieve your agenda.

The idea of the sim is to achieve as much of your agenda as possible through politicking.

Each vote is a confidence motion for that reason. A government must pass every bill it tables.

[Dr House]

I still think the first bill should contain cabinet positions.

[Gnote]

Why?

Why on earth would you give a shit about who runs which ministries?

The role of the opposition is to: 1) propose bills; and 2) deliberate on bills proposed by the government.

If a cabinet appointment results in some legislation associated with that ministry that you don't like, by all means oppose it.

[Dr House]

The point is that if the first bill isn't related to what the party administration would look like, there's really no point to restricting the initial bill at all.