Politics UK

The A Team is discussing this but it has always been the case that if something is not role-played or role-played imperfectly, and it is possible to role-play it or correct its role-playing, then it can be introduced IG as long as the A Team approves. This has been the case for as long as I remember, especially when it comes to finance related matters where no single person on the A Team has the full knowledge of the UK Tax Code and certain liberties have to be taken. We'll get back to you on this ASAP.

If I might make an odd point here, if we were to simulate this accurately, we would also probably want to cap off the debate time that the opposition's motions get without leave from the government outside of those "tagged" as an opposition day motion.

I would agree with you, depending on the frequency of opposition days. If they only happen very infrequently, we could keep the time the same.

Mmm, although this is being discussed in between the A-Team, I would like to say that there are lots of things that are done irl, but not here. Bills introduced via the Lords can be heard to division, providing the division and time for debate are capped. The divisions for such bills are normally held very late at night (in the 1980s) with the deputy speaker presiding.

PMBs can be heard to division, with the leader being over ridden, providing the debate is "carried" by agreement of the Speaker, and a yes vote of 2/3 of those who have contributed/attended to the debate. I think this could be easily enacted in game, as a Government light in debate would be without remit to end such a bill...

So, until the AVs finish their discussion, can we continue our debate IG on the basis that they don't exist IG?

I don't see why not, but if it gets too IC/IG then I will come in and end it with a no more time thing, not because it is without merit of discussion.

Wow wow wow--you cannot just declare they do not exist!

I am not doing that, I am saying that if the debate gets too IC v IG mechanics I will end the debate using IG RL mechanics; keep your hair on my child

I misread 'can we continue our debate IG on the basis that they don't exist IG?' as to believe they did not exist.

Errr, good question, I will get back to you in about half and hour with that one...

Ok, they were started quite a while ago as far as I can see... I think us AVs are going to have to work something out. These opposition days seem to exclude matters that need money spending on them, sticking to legal and immigration debates. The Alliance only get 2 days a session, so I am not sure how this would work?

Jake's suggestion of allowing the occasional opposition motion to go to a vote seems fair. IF the motion passes, that is. And certainly money matters would have to be excluded.

And again, can anthting starting (ooc:) in the other thread simply go here?

In game time, the last time a sitting government lost an opposition day vote was in 1978.

It should also be an early day motion that then allows the bill to be introduced. IRL, since 1978, the last time an early day motion allowed a vote on legislation was when Joanna Lumley mugged Woolas at immigration over the Gurkha's status limitation thing. Now, for in game mechanics, opposition parties already have opposition days, the only thing we don't run is the ability to allow legislation to proceed once the opposition win the vote on an early day motion. Can anyone say the last time the opposition won a vote on a motion they introduced? Ok, so the Leader of the House often kills motions before division. Instead of calling the motion MXX, for opposition days we call it OMXX, and then the Speaker's office allows the vote through to division? Then, if the Early Day Motion wins, and is not budgetary related in anyway, the opposition has one week to introduce legislation relating to the Early Day Motion...

That is the best I can come up with

I like it Jelly.

What should the limit on OMs be?

I would propose that the Official Opposition get one a week and the Alliance get one every month or two months.

Or is that far too spread?

Mmm, it is worked out per Parliamentary Session, which is defined differently in different eras, I will have to see what constitutes a Parliamentary Session in 1985, and then try to make sense of how time is running here in Game.

I think it will be something like: Labour get 1 official OM per week, and unlimited Ms. Alliance get one every two weeks, and unlimited Ms. If any OM makes it through division, then time runs out on all Ms and OMs in the House, and legislation must be introduced within 48 rl hrs. This will simulate the limited time that the House has to debate things, and make the opposition party's think about how they use their time in the House. If there are any question on standing rules on this subject, then they must be heard at the Speakers Chair.

How does this sound? Of course, I just made this lot up on the hoof, so it could be a load of old tosh

I think giving the Alliance one every two weeks may be actually too many...

**runs from Kippers**

I'm going to assume, given the av feedback here, that the motion can go ahead and that for debate purposes, the standing rules don't currently permit opposition days. Probably fairest to assume no one made remarks saying they did or did not exist and start the debate fresh, yes?

Details could be determined by the avs afterwards (probably in consultation with someone standing in for the govt house leader), were this to pass, but there's probably not much point in spending limited energy on thrashing out details out of character unless the bill passes in-character.

I'll plan, if this sounds all right, to resume the debate on the motion itself in a day or two and pretend that none of the remarks saying opposition days already existed were made. That sound OK?

This needs a more experienced AV than myself to decide. I think that the debate should be scrapped and that opposition days should just be... The mechanics of how they should work is what we should be debating.

I'd agree with Jelly. IG opposition motions do exist, we just don't simulate them. Whether we decide to simulate them or not is really an OOC discussion.

It was an OOG decision not to have them in the first place, and honestly any changes to that do seem like they would at least in part need to come from a further OOG determination. The details of how they would be implemented would need to be worked out by the Avs, at the very least.

Which is why I am against there being a motion regarding it.

The AVs affirmed that we were allowed to put forward our motion, the assumption therefore being that we don't have opposition days in-game. For that reason, I think the motion is valid, but I will agree that we should decide OOC first whether we want to role-play them and then complete the motion.

All the avs said, so far as we know, is that you were allowed to put it forward- not that it was smart to do so. Furthermore, whether they gave you permission or not does not mean that I have to like it being given the go-ahead.

Just explaining why the motion was put forward.

I think this is a good idea, the opposition days in RL lead to good debate, which allow both the government's policy to be debated but the opposition's policies on the subject to be scrutinised as well. I think it will add something to the game, but the number of debates should be limited, to say 1 every 2 weeks for the official opposition and 1 every month for the Liberal/Alliance.

How does it really change anything other than the fact that it will assuredly go to a vote rather than not going to a vote at all? If anything, wouldn't it make more sense to introduce the PMB ballot procedure and make something more of a big to-do about it? The ballot procedure is a random lot of all backbenchers done to allow them to present a few PMBs on scheduled days during a given Parliamentary year. It might be fun to do one of these a year because they can invoke some really interesting debate in Parliament, and it can also be fun for the individual in that various interest groups often try to curry favour with the individual to get them to present a bill on their favoured topic.

As it stands, this debate over opposition days ignores the simple fact that no one really cares whether or not opposition motions die without a vote or are killed by a noe vote from the Government. I'm pretty sure that's why opposition days don't exist in the first place.

I'd be happy with what you have suggested. However, then again, we have the problem of inactive backbenchers, so we'd have to coordinate things well.

Honestly, I'm happy with anything or nothing, it just seemed like something to have an in-character argument about. Not as if motions like this are binding in any case.

With reference to the backbench ballot, the way I see it working would be the Avs would draw lots of all members of the opposition and all government backbenchers. The top or top two winners would get to present a PMB in that parliamentary year. They could present it on any matter, however they would then be contacted by the Avs in the guise of various groups either wanting the person to put forward a specific bill they have prepared, or at least to present a PMB on their pet issue.

In terms of opposition policy, I just don't see opposition days as being a terribly useful tool for stimulating debate, scrutiny, etc. I would hope that a PMB system like this might at least promote one or two interesting debates throughout the course of the year, though of course it would require no small amount of Av effort--as with any other 'scenario' style event.

Until we actually get some really good quality debates going on motions, I just don't see those motions going to division actually accomplishing much worthwhile.

I like Rupert's idea. You're right, having a motion go to division to be rejected doesn't achieve much. I'd be happy to support this plan.

That's complacency on a grand scale.

Generally these motions would be, by their very definition, more of a free vote type issue (if the opposition parties use them well that is).

Also, this other idea has merit, but that could be put into a different thread.

This is actually something I've considered in the past. I'm happy to look at the idea again, in principle