[PASSED] Improve Prime Minister Powers |
That wording is better, Belschaft. What if we alter it slightly:
“As leader of the Cabinet, the Prime Minister is responsible for overseeing a collective Cabinet agenda, and may give directions...” That would highlight the ideal primary role of the PM a bit better, in my opinion. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This @sandaoguo?
Quote:VI. THE EXECUTIVE Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Yes, I think that’s good wording.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"responsability" -> "responsibility" (but Rebs or I can fix that via Chair discretion if necessary as well).
Otherwise, I really like it too, and will probably have more to say on it later.
Typo fixed <_<
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Does anyone have further comments?
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
The Bel and Tim versions could go as competing, if both are motioned.
Tim's version is short, sweet, to the point. It doesn't give the PM power to set policy directly, but has a veto for anything the executive does which can be overridden if and only if all other Ministers agree - so in usual cases, MoRA MoFA MoMA would have to oppose PM's veto. In case of a MoRA vacancy, as now, MoFA and MoMA can still together oppose the PM's veto. If we were to add a fifth ministry, it would require all of MoRA MoFA MoMA and MoXA (where X is the new mistery ministry) to oppose the PM's veto. Bel's version is not so short, but very much written in a style that fits well in the style of the Charter. The Prime Minister can both set and veto executive action and policy. A veto, or an order (which isn't possible in Tim's version), will in normal cases work as described in Tim's version: MoRA, MoFA, and MoMA have to all oppose it (if one of them doesn't, that's a tie and the PM's vote counts). In case of a vacancy, however, the Prime Minister only needs one other Minister (so, MoFA or MoMA). In case of a future fifth ministry, only two of MoRA, MoFA, MoMA, or MoXA have to agree with the Prime Minister. So, to summarize the differences:
I'd be fine with either. I'm probably slightly leaning towards Bel's version.
I know I'm new here, but I've been reading this intently and want to jump in. If I get something wrong, please don't hesitate to let me know!
I think it is fascinating that we elect ministers to the cabinet instead of having them be appointed like in most real governments. I'd personally like to hold on to that. I think a proposal like Tim's (which I'm unclear if he withdrew or not), does a really good job of keeping that unique structure intact. While I think Bel's proposal would be pretty effective at increasing government efficiency and cohesion, sometimes designing a system that requires members compromise with each other to succeed is just as good. I also think there's something to be said for keeping legislation as succinct as possible. These are just my thoughts. If they were to go to vote today, I'd probably lean towards Tim's proposal, if it is still on the table. Only because I'd rather see a proposal that leaves the odds in favor of the Ministers over the PM.
FaeBae
I'm with Tim's proposal, its not too extreme but it gives the Prime Minister more power than before, which I think was necessary.
Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't @Tim withdraw his proposal? He also hasn't submitted another.
(08-16-2018, 02:04 PM)Tim Wrote: I'd like to withdraw my draft, so I may reflect on it further without it being rushed through. The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe. Complete Conflict of Interest |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |