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: UBWP Statement on Coalition Formation
Details
Submitted by[?]: Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers 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: March 4736
Description[?]:
| I have noticed that immediately after the election, two small parties have taken the initiative to put out two differing Cabinet proposals. While the UBWP applauds their intentions to have a Cabinet proposal passed right after the election to prevent parliamentary gridlock, our party does not think it is the right step to take. Firstly, we believe that the Cabinet proposals should be discussed thoroughly with the parties included because certain parties might have different preferences on Cabinet positions than what is proposed. Furthermore, we think that Cabinet positions should be decided based on what ministry a political party wants to be in charge of rather than based on the size of the largest political parties. Two political parties having the largest amount of seats doesn't mean that they should hold the most seats, because that undermines pluralism and prevents multiple perspectives from being listened to. Secondly, while we respect the smaller parties taking the initiative to propose Cabinet proposals, I think that that decision should go to the two largest parties, the BBB and our party because we both have the largest amount of seats in Parliament, so we both should have the mandate to decide on which parties form the next government of Beluzia. Also, the UBWP thinks that the two biggest parties can perfectly decide for themselves who they want in government, they do not need help from smaller parties. What is shocking is the fact that the May proposal is drafted by the BRP, but does not include the BRP! Why is the BRP deciding for the BBB what government coalition they should go into, rather than the BBB deciding what government coalition they want? Also, the BRP is voting for the proposal, a proposal that they did not include themselves in. As always, we respect the initiative to form a government right after an election, but a smaller party deciding for a larger party is not how government coalitions should be formed. The final point we would like to make is that the Cabinet proposals put out all seem to be ideological in nature. They all seem to be formed based on the ideologies of the parties. The May one seems to be a neoliberal coalition, the June one seems to be a left-wing coalition. The UBWP does not think that partisan cabinet formations are going to help the politics of this nation, especially when the country voted for 5 political parties of different stripes to represent them in Parliament. We ask all parties to refrain from putting out Cabinet proposals that have not been thoroughly discussed and approved by other parties. OOC: After an election in most Western democracies, I have never seen the mandate to form a government go to the smallest party, but rather to the largest party. You don't see the Green Party being given the mandate to form a government after the 2019 UK snap general election. You don't see the Forum for Democracy party in Netherlands being given the mandate to form a government after the 2017 election. While Beluzian law allows all parties to form a government coalition, I think it's best that we keep in mind how governments are formed IRL |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:14:30, April 01, 2020 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the UBWP Statement on Coalition Formation |
| Message | OOC: I don't have any animosity towards the BRP and SDP wanting to form a government, but I think we should just keep in mind that Cabinet formation should not be rushed. I hope that this is clear to everyone. |
| Date | 16:18:40, April 01, 2020 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the UBWP Statement on Coalition Formation |
| Message | OOC: How does everyone want to conduct coalition negotiations? Through PM or just a open to all bill where we can discuss who we want to go into government with |
| Date | 16:23:36, April 01, 2020 CET | From | Beluzian Business Bureau | To | Debating the UBWP Statement on Coalition Formation |
| Message | OCC: im fine with either, and as a centrist party i would like to say i open to most offers |
| Date | 16:23:37, April 01, 2020 CET | From | Beluzian Business Bureau | To | Debating the UBWP Statement on Coalition Formation |
| Message | OCC: im fine with either, and as a centrist party i would like to say i open to most offers |
| Date | 18:47:02, April 01, 2020 CET | From | Beluzia Renewal Party (BRP) | To | Debating the UBWP Statement on Coalition Formation |
| Message | The BRP (that little party) absolutely did not produce an ideological coalition proposal (the so-called May one). It was produced as a coalition of the only 2-party coalition that it thought was feasible (the UBWP and BBB clearly have no interest in sharing a cabinet with each other). Although the BBB had far more seats than Stanton House, the BRP has been frankly horrified at some of the legislation which the BBB had tried to introduce in its short history in our Parliament. The BRP therefore would have trusted Stanton House, though itself a minority party, to run a coalition more sensibly in most areas of legislation. However, it was expected that Stanton House would be able to accommodate the BBB in whatever legislation they might wish to introduce regarding businesses - that is after all what the title of the party indicates is their primary concern. The BRP acted in good faith to indicate that it would support such an arrangement when it was unlikely that the BBB itself would do so, and that Stanton House itself might consider too presumptuous to introduce as their own proposal. Finally, the BRP has decided against occupying any cabinet positions. It cannot work with a majority BBB cabinet for reasons just stated, nor with a majority UBWP cabinet, due principally to the tendency of its leader to preach to the rest of us. In the language of the vernacular...sort it out guys |
| Date | 22:27:21, April 01, 2020 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the UBWP Statement on Coalition Formation |
| Message | The UBWP does not want a majority UBWP cabinet, which I made especially clear when I said one party should not hold the majority of Cabinet positions because of the share of seats the party holds. Also, this is not me 'preaching', and also I don't know how whatever this means means that whatever Cabinet is formed with the UBWP at its head is going to be a majority UBWP cabinet. If the BRP had read my statement, they would have seen that I want a Cabinet where the cabinet positions are distributed equally and where the parties indicate what positions they are interested in. I stated it clearly: 'Furthermore, we think that Cabinet positions should be decided based on what ministry a political party wants to be in charge of rather than based on the size of the largest political parties. Two political parties having the largest amount of seats doesn't mean that they should hold the most seats, because that undermines pluralism and prevents multiple perspectives from being listened to.' |
| Date | 22:32:17, April 01, 2020 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the UBWP Statement on Coalition Formation |
| Message | Furthermore, I am not 'preaching', I am just asking parties to respect democratic norms and to allow the two largest parties to make their decisions on what kind of government they want for the country. OOC: After an election in a Western democracy, if a small party (btw, by small I mean a party that has a small share of seats in Parliament, not in terms of membership, and its duration in a nation) asks to form a Government, they are told not to because the constitution or the commonly held view is for the largest party to form a government. Is following the law or respecting democratic principles 'preaching'? |
| Date | 22:36:52, April 01, 2020 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the UBWP Statement on Coalition Formation |
| Message | OOC: If I am 'preaching', does that mean I'm not allowed to write long speeches on the topics that are being forward for debate? Long speeches is not preaching, it is a way of presenting an argument. If asking to respect democratic principles is 'preaching', then you might as well consider all IRL leaders who are calling for action on climate change as 'preaching' on the topic |
| Date | 18:13:48, April 03, 2020 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the UBWP Statement on Coalition Formation |
| Message | OOC: Archive |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 285 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 185 |
| Random fact: Don't vote yes on a cabinet coalition that doesn't give you the power that you deserve. |
| Random quote: "Communism: liberation of the people from the burdens of liberty." - Rick Bayan |