[Demosthenes]

I think we should simplify as much as possible if we can. If I were the decider at this point, I would think 2 for the government/per week, 1 for each party out of power.

Otherwise, again, I don't care. I just want something to work that has general support from people actually playing the game, and something that will keep them interested as much as possible whether they are opposition or not.

I DO think it's important that the government propose at least one piece of legislation a week or lose it's mandate though. This forces the government to play, and if it doesn't rightfully concedes this power to the next party.

[HoniSoit]

I would think 2 for the government/per week, 1 for each party out of power.

Sounds good to me.

I especially like Ingliz's idea about having the shadow government amend bills as it gives them (and the government) a more central role in the sim.

I have no problem with this. But in case others may see this as the manifestation of authoritarian SN-RF regime, I think if non-ruling parties wish to proposal bills they should be able to do so as well. I'm fine either way so long as everyone's happy.

I DO think it's important that the government propose at least one piece of legislation a week or lose it's mandate though.

I agree.

[ingliz]

I DO think it's important that the government propose at least one piece of legislation a week or lose it's mandate though. This forces the government to play, and if it doesn't rightfully concedes this power to the next party.

Ridiculous - As we are stuck with a 72 hour vote that timeframe will leave no time for debate, no time for committee, and hardly time to even draft the legislation.

How can we nuance our legislation to gain the support of the House if we are on a treadmill of meaningless legislating for legislating's sake? Having to draft the next bill with no idea what the reaction of the chamber was to our last.

Slow it down to 2 bills a fortnight; in effect, this is the same but allows time for debate, amendment, etc.

[Demosthenes]

How can we nuance our legislation to gain the support of the House if we are on a treadmill of meaningless legislating for legislating's sake? Having to draft the next bill with no idea what the reaction of the chamber was to our last.

And yet how can we balance that against the out of power parties who don't want to be stuck behind a government that is active enough? For purposes of the sim itself, the game needs to be kept moving. Propose legislation or get out of the way. At least, that's my thought.

[Zyx]

Wait, I reconsidered this.

I think that we should follow the earlier schema of my proposal. Namely, emulating the American system of giving the speaker, here the PM, special privileges for the introduction of bills (that is, a slate of bills are handed to the PM, but the PM can decide whether those bills will be introduced to the floor). Beside this, ministers, and their cabinets, ought to introduce bills. A way to increase non-governmental participation in bill crafting is to have ministry cabinets with non-government membership: like, Dr House being my subordinate in Infrastructure, he knowing full well that I have a higher say in whatever legislation we craft. Above this, it should be that half of the ministerial cabinet has to agree with the minister in order for the bill to be considered acceptable for the PM. Ideally, SN-RF will be overrepresented in each cabinet so this would not pose a problem, but given the number of ministries (which we might need to lower for this system,) it may be that, if every MP is involved, some cabinets run more fluently than others.

As to the amount of bills, given the amount of work on a bill, I say no minimum. In this system, everyone can participate, so parties won't be left out or whatever.

I also propose that each bill has an abstract. Some bills can be gruesomely long: unlike real politicians, we don't have secretaries to read our bills for us.

[ingliz]

This is getting very silly

We can pile up bills in the Party thread but given what happened with the confidence package only a few will get the attention they deserve. You can see what happened to the Employment Bill. There was no thought put into it, no budget allowed, with gaping holes you could drive a bus through, never mind the loopholes, in short, it was a steaming pile of shite so bad it never came to the vote. Is this what you want?

Two bills per week, up to a maximum of six, with three days of that week set aside for the vote leaves very little time to amend bills in committee and no time for debate in the chamber.

A bill is suppposed to start off as a rough draft, to be approved by the Party and then be sent to committee where the other parties have a chance to amend it. It is then presented to parliament to be debated in chamber. If these amendments cannot be agreed the government bill is presented with those opposition amendments, separate from the main body of the text, to be voted on.

Now we can telescope the committee and debate into one, if needs be, but this process cannot be rushed through in 4 days and be done properly. The haste, which you insist upon, will mean there will be next to no discussion in a discussion forum.

I still say the voting cycle should be extended even if the number of bills introduced would be the same under both systems.