Politics Forum.org | PoFo

House - what's a joint government?

A government held by more than one party.

I think coalition government is allowed.

What are you proposing?

I'm negotiating a grand coalition government. I wasn't sure whether the new government formation rules allowed for more than one party to officially hold a government.

A joint-government is the same as a coalition government. They are allowed, but they would only get first chance to govern if one of the parties to the coalition was the largest in parliament.

I see. Thanks Gnote.

No offense though, but why are you posting here?

I could ask you the same question.

House - I think Gnote is constructive enough to partake in the discussion here.

Gnote wrote:I could ask you the same question.

I'm filling Dave's spot in the GM council until his return.

HoniSoit wrote:House - I think Gnote is constructive enough to partake in the discussion here.

I agree, but the thread is labeled GM council only.

I don't think there is a need to be technical here.

Because technically the council members are chosen not because they are heads of parties; so if Dave is missing, strictly speaking no one would be substituting him simply because he or she has replaced Dave as the party leader. Having said that, I certainly don't mind you joining the discussion as you have been really constructive here. Actually, I don't mind anyone joining the discussion as long as he or she is constructive; however, not many people are like you and Gnote.

Actually, no offense to Honi's generosity at all, I personally DO prefer that this thread be kept to those on the council only, at least in general.

Gnote and I have had ongoing discusions on various topics, and as the only other off topic mod really participating in the SIM he is the only other mod capable of "administrating" gm council functions.

Plus, his input has been integral up to this point.

Anyway, a coaltion is absolutely in the letter and spirit of the rules, but must occur on a rotation basis. In other words according to results we have right now, SN-RF cannot be denied a chance to propose legislation. But they can be voted down. If that occurs per some agreement by the other parties...that is just gamesmanship, though likely to alienate SN-RF, their alienation is ALSO gamesmanship.

Man, I'm trying to catch up but this is like a sinking ship with 50 holes, as soon as I try to plug one, another springs open. All good though, and I'd like to thank the four of you for your efforts to keep the game running smoothly.

In the future, Honi, if I am absent of for any length of time (like more than a day), and the game requires attention, convene as many coucil members as you can and make a decesion in good faith. As long as there are at least a couple of you in differing parties making the decision, I'm sure it will be fine, and I'll back you even if I would have done things differently.

I generally spend most of the day on Pofo, so as long as I'm a GM council member I'll most likely be around to help put out any fires.

Next order of business: I think we should concentrate on doing what the GM council was designated to do, which is hammering out the details of what the RoP looks like. One of the main things we need to decide is exactly what the government structure, revenues, budget and what have you looked like before the new parliament was established. We also need to decide more or less what the median income is and how it's distributed by decile (by percentile even if possible), and what the government's credit rating is (I vote BB on that).

I'm formally submitting the list of ministries to the GM council for approval:

Treasurer
Legal Affairs / Attorney General
Defence
Education
Culture and the Arts
Labour and Union Affairs
Agriculture
Environment
Trade and Finance
Foreign Affairs
Home Affairs
Health
Science and Technology

Now that's micromanaging. I see no reason whatsoever why parties can't create their own cabinet positions. This is not something for the GM council to rule on.

The reason I am submitting it for consideration is that I don't want people to start complaining after we have appointed the ministers.

If there is any complaint, make it known now. House - you could also discuss it with Falx or whoever you want, and relay their opinions to the council if necessary.

I have none, so long as parties are then allowed to change/split/merge the cabinet positions as they see fit.

And, really, why would there be whining about cabinet positions of all things?

House wrote:And, really, why would there be whining about cabinet positions of all things?

I don't know but you never know when people would whine about it.

I will wait for a few hours in case there is any opposition to this. If there is none, I will go ahead with the arrangment.

I have none either, I agree that outside the four created by the constitution, the ministry positions should be left up to the government.

Don't forget there is supposed to be an interior, though it could be named anything that functions like it.

Edit- Oh, one other thing we didn't account for though, and only because we have no rule in place at this time to deal with it, How do we assign rotation to two parties who have received the same number of MPs. I noticed THP and PNL discussing that, and it's a good question. Obviously if the two parties agree, fine. I'd think the first tiebreaker is number of total votes, but in this case these two tied on that as well.

Perhaps we should go by who can make the better Greek salad?

Demo wrote:Perhaps we should go by who can make the better Greek salad?

I would definitely support that.

Obviously as you point out it would be best if the two parties can agree among themselves. However, in the case they cannot agree, I think they should demonstrate if they can rally support among other MPs considering each of the two parties only has 20% of the votes/seats they do need others support if they want to pass the confidence vote. The party that has more support among MPs of other parties should be given the first chance in my opinion.

How would that be gauged, though?

I would say both parties should be allowed to submit their own confidence motions simultaneously.