We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Office of Speaker Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Hutorian Conservative Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 2954
Description[?]:
This Bill wil reform the way that the Speaker of the House of Parliament is appointed. It sees the old Speaker of the House (Amendment) Act thrown out and replaced with this Bill. (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=277891) This Bill will not include the already overturned former Article 4.
The Office of Speaker shall be resolved by this method.
I. The Speaker of the House is the presiding officer of the legislature, and oversees debates and ministerial statements, and ensures that all Members of Parliament are equally represented in parliamentary proceedings.
II. The Speaker shall be appointed to the House by the reigning Prime Minister. The PM can invite any MP to take up the position of Speaker and the Member of Parliament can accept or decline the invite. This process of asking MP's to become Speaker will continue until an MP accepts the position.
III. The Speaker of the House shall serve for ten years. They are elegible to be re-appointed once.
IV. The Speaker of the House's office shall be responsible for keeping records of the transactions and proceedings of the legislature. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:19:58, June 14, 2010 CET |
From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Office of Speaker Bill | | Message | Rt Hon Michael Mancini MP, NSC Frontbencher,
Madam Speaker, the NSC would like to make the workings of the House more efficient. The position of Speaker has no real influence in Hutorian politics so appointment rather than elction should be the way a Speaker is selected. This gives another power to the armoury of the office of Prime Minister and the PM can appoint a new Speaker every 10 years once a Speakers term is up. |
| Date | 15:31:19, June 14, 2010 CET |
From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Office of Speaker Bill | | Message | Madam Speaker, the Speaker is the representative of the legislature and not of the Executive. The entire point of the Speaker is to ensure that every single Member of Parliament can feel represented and equally able to speak. This would not happen if the Speaker was a stooge of the Executive. MPs must have confidence in the Speaker and this is why elections are essential. Perhaps, Madam Speaker, the NSC believe all elections are inefficient and irrelevant and so general elections will be the next to go. |
| Date | 15:33:52, June 14, 2010 CET |
From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Office of Speaker Bill | | Message | Madam Speaker, the CLP are misguided here. The Speaker has to overturn their party allegiances so they cannot become this 'stooge of the executive' character the CLP claim. There is nothing to suggest the PM cannot ask an opposition MP to take up the office? This makes Parliament more efficient and also sees a Speaker could serve 20 years. |
| Date | 15:46:29, June 14, 2010 CET |
From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Office of Speaker Bill | | Message | Madam Speaker, it ensures that there is a candidate that is favourable to the Prime Minister. The whole point is that, if anything, the Prime Minister should find the Speaker an uncomfortable candidate, for it is only then that the Speaker is ensuring that every single MP has a voice in Parliament. Madam Speaker, it does not make anything more efficient. Elections are hardly inefficient. Once one term ends, another term begins. Madam Speaker, we must remind the NSC that it is extremely unlikely that they will be in power forever. Whilst it suits them now, in 20 years time, a Prime Minister from another Party may appoint a Speaker that has a deep distaste for the NSC. Then the NSC MPs would not be represented in Parliament. Madam Speaker, this is short-sighted and wrong. |
| Date | 15:48:11, June 14, 2010 CET |
From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Office of Speaker Bill | | Message | Madam Speaker, the CLP fail to grasp that once appointed, by law the Speaker has to be POLITICALLY NEUTRAL! Hardly the basis for an arguement against saying how they will be bias. |
| Date | 16:23:29, June 14, 2010 CET |
From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Office of Speaker Bill | | Message | Yet, Madam Speaker, they will have been appointed in a political way, not in a democratic way that forbids a party from voting for their own candidate. Madam Speaker, being politically neutral simply means that they will no longer be tied to their political party. It does not mean they will act with neutrality. Madam Speaker, I just cannot understand why the NSC want to stop a Speaker being voted for by his or her peers? It doesn't make sense. And if it's on the grounds of efficiency, as I say, why should this not extend to general elections? |
| Date | 16:26:03, June 14, 2010 CET |
From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Office of Speaker Bill | | Message | Madam Speaker, the CLP's arguement is flawed in so many ways as we have already outlined. We move to a vote and we hope the UFD vote Yes. In return for a yes vote, the PM will invite them to become the first Speaker in a new era of Parliament. |
| Date | 16:37:09, June 14, 2010 CET |
From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Office of Speaker Bill | | Message | Madam Speaker, this is exactly the reason why it shouldn't happen like this. Every time a Prime Minister wants something from a Party, he will simply offer that Party the Speakership, or some other political appointment. Madam Speaker, selecting a Speaker is not some political toy or game - it is about selecting the representative of Members of Parliament. This would dramatically tilt the balance between the executive and the legislature in the executive's favour. All members should remind themselves of the NSC's desire to create a "totalitarian state". This is simply a step towards that goal. |
| Date | 16:39:44, June 14, 2010 CET |
From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Office of Speaker Bill | | Message | Madam Speaker, the CLP make it out to be a bad thing! Depends on your persuasion. The NSC still sees the balance of power with the legislature even if this Bill passes. The Speaker cannot do anything of real significance so there isnt really an issue, just the CLP showing they are adverse to any form of change! |
| Date | 16:46:58, June 14, 2010 CET |
From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Office of Speaker Bill | | Message | Madam Speaker, The needs to be treated as a change to the constitution, will the government aknowlege this? |
| Date | 16:56:08, June 14, 2010 CET |
From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Office of Speaker Bill | | Message | But madam speaker, this is not an act of law, but of fundamental national governance. We cannot go along with the mistakes of the past! This is above Ideology and policy, and needs to be treated as such. |
| Date | 17:12:45, June 14, 2010 CET |
From | United Forces of Decay | To | Debating the Office of Speaker Bill | | Message | "The government should have the possibility to control the parliament, and the law that's proposed here is an important step into the right direction. If we don't keep a vigilant eye on the parliament, the danger of riots and unrest is much higher than otherwise. I would be glad to act as the first one of many Speakers for the current government."
- Belial, judge of the deceased |
| Date | 09:56:30, June 15, 2010 CET |
From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Office of Speaker Bill | | Message | Madam Speaker, shall my party and all other opposition parties now prepare for our questions to go unanswered in this chamber? For our concerns to be disregarded and our positions represented as "irrelevant". Madam Speaker, every single Member of Parliament is important and has an equal right to representation. Each one of us has been elected by a group of voters, and no group of voters is more important than another. Madam Speaker, this astonishing act of power-grabbing is a betrayal of the electorate. It is parliament, as the representatives of the people, that is sovereign, not the government. The government is answerable to parliament, not the other way around. Madam Speaker, the government should be ashamed.
OOC: It's also taken away another bit of RP that allows parties to introduce a backbencher, form a background for him etc. It was also interesting to see how parties voted for the Speaker, given that they could not vote for their own candidate and it threw up some interesting results at times (eg. the current CLP Speaker). Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that the NSC player could never be bothered to propose a Speaker because he lacks the imagination and the know-how to do any decent role play. |
| Date | 20:17:04, June 15, 2010 CET |
From | United Forces of Decay | To | Debating the Office of Speaker Bill | | Message | OOC: Come on, don't insult other players ;-) The NSC and my party won't destine the policy of this country forever, just wait a few elections and then its your turn. |
| Date | 10:40:48, June 16, 2010 CET |
From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Office of Speaker Bill | | Message | OOC: I have done enough controlling of policy to last a lifetime, don't worry about that. That isn't the issue. The issue is that role play has always taken a back seat with some other players. I would have thought that is something you would value. The player behind the Luskite party was one of the greatest RPers this nation had and it's a pity that he left. But he left in part because of players that wouldn't partake in decent role play. We tried to build this region up and give a better impression of what it was like, but that has been lost recently as others just do as they wish without bothering with others. |
| Date | 10:41:18, June 16, 2010 CET |
From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Office of Speaker Bill | | Message | OOC: I have done enough controlling of policy to last a lifetime, don't worry about that. That isn't the issue. The issue is that role play has always taken a back seat with some other players. I would have thought that is something you would value. The player behind the Luskite party was one of the greatest RPers this nation had and it's a pity that he left. But he left in part because of players that wouldn't partake in decent role play. We tried to build this region up and give a better impression of what it was like, but that has been lost recently as others just do as they wish without bothering with others. It has nothing to do with control at all - I'm not in it to 'win'; I'm in the game to create an interesting country. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 252 |
| no | Total Seats: 139 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players using inactive accounts and/or accounts from outside nations may only propose bills and/or contribute to discussions, whether IC (in-character) or OOC (out-of-character) with the general consent of the players in the nation. |
| Random quote: "Nature provides a free lunch, but only if we control our appetites." - William Ruckelshaus |