Standing Orders for Parliament - Discussion Thread

[Barnes]

Seeing as the Provisionally Parliament should be wrapping up shortly, I think it's pertinent for us to discuss the operations of the new parliament following the election.  Now, as we know, the legislature operates quite differently in a Parliamentary system than in the American version.  We really don't want this game to become identical to the operations of Atlasia, so I've been kicking around the following ideas, which I'm just starting to assemble into one document of Standing Orders.

1. Only Ministers may introduce legislation (unless on an Opposition Day, see below).  This way there is a clear government program and clear debate between government and opposition.  I, for one, tired of the lethargic debates in the Atlasian Senate that strove to find consensus among everyone.  That might be nice in the RL, but it's good to have some solid opposition in a game.

2. Strict (and shorter) limits on debates. I would think that only two or three bills should go before the house at any one time.  I think we're striving for a more efficient and faster-paced game here, so I'd like to see time limits something like this:
    Appropriations bills: 5 days*
    General government bills: 4 days
    Opposition day bills: 3 days
    Motions (excluding a motion of censure or confidence): 3 days
    Motions of censure or confidence: 2 days
*We can decide if we actually want to deal with budgets, of course, but I thought I'd put it out there.

3. A committee system for backbenchers.  Perhaps three or four committees that mirror government departments.  These would be for backbenchers only and be able to study legislation as well as question the relevant minister(s).  Examples include:
    Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
    Finance, Employment, and Labor
    Social Services, Health, and Education
    etc, etc, etc

4. Question Time.  Now, this can be a bust if it's not handled properly, but this could be a good area for zingers and for rising members to make their mark.

5. Opposition Days.  Allow the Leader of the Opposition, or his/her designee, to introduce legislation on a set day - perhaps every weekend, or every other weekend?  This allows the opposition to get some legislation in Parliament without impeding government business

6. Motions.  Allow all backbenchers to move a motion relating to any topic.  A maximum number (perhaps three?) can be debated simultaneously.  It's up to the Leader of the House to allow these to go to a vote.

7. Censure/Confidence Motions.  Bit more rules here: can only be moved by the PM or Leader of the Oppositon (or just perhaps any party leader?)  Must be put to a vote at the conclusion of debate and take precedence over all other motions.

[Blair]

Yeah the two biggest problems with Atlasia was that firstly bills took too long to sort out and pass, especially if you had amendments which required waiting 24 hours. I mean I know we can't copy it but the House of Commons gives you 15 minutes to vote (Ministers have missed votes through being stuck in toilets before) So if we can keep it quick, and actually make it about the government  v the rest then we could get it going.

The only thing I'm skeptical of is committees, because there an absolute pain to organize however it gives people a reason to stay in parliament

[Cranberry]

I wouldn't actually see a need for some kind of "opposition day", I think just Ministers should be able to introduce legislation, period. As you say, Atlasia kind of sucked with the "getting everyone to agree"-schtick, so both in order to make it more interesting and set a contrast, I would say just allow the government to introduce bills, so we also have more of a dualism. If the opposition wants to enact their agenda, they should win elections or form a better coalition, easy as that.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well we should allow private member's bills like any other democracy, no?

[Barnes]

Well we should allow private member's bills like any other democracy, no?

That is also part of what I was working on but I rather inadvertently left it off of my list. I don't really know what time table we would want to use for them.

[Blair]

Well, it's up to the party and I know people hate them but we need a whipping system, especially since a parliament is much more party based.

[Barnes]

Well, it's up to the party and I know people hate them but we need a whipping system, especially since a parliament is much more party based.

Oh I'm strongly in favor of the Whips.

[Oakvale]

One thing that we might consider - perhaps (during debates on bill and in Question Time, at least) that MPs must address their remarks to the Speaker. I think this would cut out on "Yeah this" and bland empty quoting etc.

I wouldn't actually see a need for some kind of "opposition day", I think just Ministers should be able to introduce legislation, period. As you say, Atlasia kind of sucked with the "getting everyone to agree"-schtick, so both in order to make it more interesting and set a contrast, I would say just allow the government to introduce bills, so we also have more of a dualism. If the opposition wants to enact their agenda, they should win elections or form a better coalition, easy as that.

Also agree with this.

[Barnes]

One thing that we might consider - perhaps (during debates on bill and in Question Time, at least) that MPs must address their remarks to the Speaker. I think this would cut out on "Yeah this" and bland empty quoting etc.

I absolutely agree with you here! We need to try as much as possible to move this into actual formalized proceedings.

I'm on my phone right now, so I'll respond to the other comments later.

[Potus]

What about registering an IRC channel, #QuestionTime, and allow the PM to call a Question Time when there is controversial legislation or a big event? Combine press conferences and sick burns.

[Vega]

I think a time period to vote wouldn't totally absurd. Maybe have it be at an hour or two?

Time-zones make it a bit hard to synch up though, sadly.

[Cranberry]

I think a time period to vote wouldn't totally absurd. Maybe have it be at an hour or two?

Time-zones make it a bit hard to synch up though, sadly.

That's completely impossible given our about 60/40 - America/Europe split, so 24 hours have to be given for voting - you can't expect Europeans to be online at 3 am, and this would be about the best time for Americans....

[Leinad]

Wait, only government ministers can introduce legislation? I'd rather we open it to anyone introducing legislation. I'm not sure why that would lead to things where we try to "make everyone agree"--as long as it only needs a simple majority to agree, we don't need any more than 11/21.

I like the committee idea. That sounds like it would be quite fun.

[Blair]

Wait, only government ministers can introduce legislation? I'd rather we open it to anyone introducing legislation. I'm not sure why that would lead to things where we try to "make everyone agree"--as long as it only needs a simple majority to agree, we don't need any more than 11/21.

I like the committee idea. That sounds like it would be quite fun.

Because that's how a parliament works...

[Barnes]

I think a time period to vote wouldn't totally absurd. Maybe have it be at an hour or two?

Time-zones make it a bit hard to synch up though, sadly.

That's completely impossible given our about 60/40 - America/Europe split, so 24 hours have to be given for voting - you can't expect Europeans to be online at 3 am, and this would be about the best time for Americans....

I totally understand that and my proposals were actually debate hours not counting time for votes. What I'm looking for really is for only a few (if any) votes on actual amendments, etc.  So having a vote for 24 hours wouldn't impede work.

[Leinad]

Wait, only government ministers can introduce legislation? I'd rather we open it to anyone introducing legislation. I'm not sure why that would lead to things where we try to "make everyone agree"--as long as it only needs a simple majority to agree, we don't need any more than 11/21.

I like the committee idea. That sounds like it would be quite fun.

Because that's how a parliament works...

Yeah, I get that, but status quo is never good enough reasoning, in my mind. I'm just struggling to connect the dots of "anyone can introduce bills" to "make everyone agree," although it's seeming that Barnes and Cranberry look at the two as going hand-in-hand.

As long as we have some sort of private members bill mechanism, like Hagrid suggested, it should be okay.

[Cranberry]

Wait, only government ministers can introduce legislation? I'd rather we open it to anyone introducing legislation. I'm not sure why that would lead to things where we try to "make everyone agree"--as long as it only needs a simple majority to agree, we don't need any more than 11/21.

I like the committee idea. That sounds like it would be quite fun.

Because that's how a parliament works...

Yeah, I get that, but status quo is never good enough reasoning, in my mind. I'm just struggling to connect the dots of "anyone can introduce bills" to "make everyone agree," although it's seeming that Barnes and Cranberry look at the two as going hand-in-hand.

As long as we have some sort of private members bill mechanism, like Hagrid suggested, it should be okay.

The thing is that if we are doing a simulation of a parliamentary system, we will obviously closely mirror our sim to reality, which inlcudes mirroring the operation of our parliament to the ones of real life parliaments in nations with such a system in place. In a parliamentary system, it is simply not custom for opposition parties to be able to introduce legislations, that's what ministers with their different resorts are for. If you want to get through your agenda, you'll need to win elections and form government, otherwise, what would a differentiation between government and opposition be good for?
Can you see our point?

Talk about Atlasia's tendency to get everyone to agree to a bill by just moderating the crap out of it is actually irrelevant to the argument, it just serves a side argument as most people that came here were sick of many aspects of Atlasia, including that one. If you prefer a system like that, I would kindly and honestly advise you to rather stick with that, be active in Atlasia and not here. If we want this experiment to suceed, we will have to have differences from Atlasia, and if people are not ready to get through with those changes and differences, I doubt that they will feel at home here as much as they did in Atlasia.

[Blair]

Wait, only government ministers can introduce legislation? I'd rather we open it to anyone introducing legislation. I'm not sure why that would lead to things where we try to "make everyone agree"--as long as it only needs a simple majority to agree, we don't need any more than 11/21.

I like the committee idea. That sounds like it would be quite fun.

Because that's how a parliament works...

Yeah, I get that, but status quo is never good enough reasoning, in my mind. I'm just struggling to connect the dots of "anyone can introduce bills" to "make everyone agree," although it's seeming that Barnes and Cranberry look at the two as going hand-in-hand.

As long as we have some sort of private members bill mechanism, like Hagrid suggested, it should be okay.

Why does everything have to be a battle? It's how a parliament works, because the party with the majority of the house is the government. In Atlasia we had no government agenda-the government didn't exist. Hopefully that won't happen here

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Does anyone else get the impression that Leinad does not understand what parliamentarianism actually is?

[Leinad]

Okay, I understand it now. Thanks to Cranberry and Blair for clearing things up.

I apologize if I've annoyed anyone. I can tell how asking silly questions and taking issue with seemingly *everything* can be pretty darn annoying. I do it simply because I have an obsessive interest in stuff like this, and little social life (shocking, right?). In case you doubt my motives, I'll clarify that this paragraph is nothing more than an explanation of why I'm annoying to the multitudes who seem annoyed by me (or at least ask confusing questions about whether I'm always on/never off/always...doing something with...lapels).

Anyway, we should continue discussing important matters, and not derail it with nonsense.

(Phew, it took me a while to post that. I self-censored lots of excess snark.)

[Foucaulf]

1. Only Ministers may introduce legislation (unless on an Opposition Day, see below).  This way there is a clear government program and clear debate between government and opposition.  I, for one, tired of the lethargic debates in the Atlasian Senate that strove to find consensus among everyone.  That might be nice in the RL, but it's good to have some solid opposition in a game.

As Hagrid alluded to, the usual division of bills in the Westminster System is between government bills and private members' bills. I think the standing rules is that all legislation proposed by Government will be introduced in its own topic. There should be another topic in which all private members' bills must be introduced, then the Speaker can decide if/when to introduce them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you really want to make the system so formal? Since our game doesn't really feature substantial executive business, I don't see why people can't just speak up during a Questions thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be good to have a thread like this, so long as we enforce that zingers and complaining go there while serious discussion about bills stay in the legislation threads. In other words, the Questioning thread ensures the legislation threads don't get clogged up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Speaker or leader of the house? Which motions in particular? In general we want to set the rules so that bills that aren't successful will be voted down rather than amended constantly. This is where a "First/Second Reading" section may be useful.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You'll want to set time limits on this too, maybe once every 30 days.

I have no problems with 2, and my problems with 5 are the same as everyone else's.

[Barnes]

Alright, let's address some questions here...

1. The Speaker would not be the one with the discretion to decide when to move bills to the floor, again, that's with the Leader of the House.  I went ahead and made the assumption that we would have such a position.  It would be quite a fun role and could be combined with the Chief Whip, etc.

Regardless, the agenda for the week is set by the Government, so for example the Leader of the House (or I suppose the PM if we don't want this position) would make a Notice Paper for the week outlying what bills would go in the government slots, etc.

3.  Committees were envisioned by me to make up for the fact that backbenchers wouldn't normally be introducing legislation.  There have been problems with these ideas in the past, of course, and I'm certainly not wedded to the idea.

If we're going to have a full executive government, I would envision ministers making some regular amount of work.  Otherwise what's the point of having them at all?

6.  Again, the Leader of the House posses this authority.  I'm not quite sure of the concern here about constant amending.  Motions could be anything such as "This House condemns the Government's education policy" and we have a debate about said policy.  This gives the opposition a chance to have a strong voice without obstructing business.

7.  I agree here.


There's quite a bit of concern about the Opposition Days, which, to be honest, I don't quite understand.  This setup is quite common in Westminster systems.  The opposition is allowed to put forward a bill to show what they could do in government; the bill itself would only go to a vote if the government decided to allocate time for it - this can happen if it would be awkward for the government of the day to oppose it.

[Talleyrand]

Haven't looked at this in detail, but I agree with Barnes on creating a Chief Whip/Leader of the House position with the discretion on the floor agenda. I'd rather have the Speaker be a more impartial, procedural figure responsible for making sure Parliament doesn't get out of hand etc.

As for committees, I think they would add a layer of bureaucracy to the game that wouldn't really add to the intrigue or interest in it. We can take heed from when Atlasia introduced committees in the Senate and people literally dreaded having to deal with them because they were pretty much meaningless as it went.

I think we can solve the issue of non-government ministers not having legislation on the floor by having a limited number of private members's bills. I also like the idea of giving the government discretion on whether to allow a vote on an opposition bill at all; that would add a good bit of complexity to the simulation.

[Barnes]

Just to be clear, I'm in no way wedded to committees, and I have clear memories of the problems that they caused in Atlasia, so that might be pertinent advice to heed indeed.

[Foucaulf]

Getting really spergy here, so apologies in advance.

The Speaker would not be the one with the discretion to decide when to move bills to the floor, again, that's with the Leader of the House ... Regardless, the agenda for the week is set by the Government, so for example the Leader of the House (or I suppose the PM if we don't want this position)

I am almost certain that the Speaker is the one who keeps track of these in every Westminster system. (How the agenda is formed is technically embodied in the Chamber's rules of order, and the Speaker enforces the rules of order.) A Westminster speaker isn't as oppressive as an American speaker, but they also are members of the governing party/coalition. Either way, the rules will be agreed upon by the House before business is done.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The question is more about if we demand other MPs to stick to a work schedule as well. I certainly don't mind a trial run, though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that would be a motion for a resolution instead of a motion on a bill. A speaker would impose caps and debate limits on those just like private members' bills and government bills.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not really that important in Westminster systems, though. Question Time/Period is the usual channel to register complaints. I don't even know if we'll do official oppositions and shadow cabinets in this game, and if the players don't want to that's how it is.