(07-19-2022, 06:39 PM)The Allied States of Bistritza Wrote:

(07-19-2022, 03:25 PM)im_a_waffle1 Wrote: This is exactly same thing that we do right now.

We do none of this now. The PM is just a coordinating figure in the Cabinet. Giving power to the PM would make regular reports and questions concerning progress to the PM's set agenda naturally consistent (hence why I just wanted to codify it, as I can see already that it'll become a common procedure).
We don't discuss why 'x' has failed, we don't have a criteria by which a PM's term can objectively be judged. Instead it's just a vague assessment. This way, you have criteria, set by the PM themselves, which if aren't met lead to discussion on why it hasn't been met. It allows, to paraphrase myself, a natural progression of the Coalition towards efficiency.

Still, I want to see suggestions on how the WA would (or even should) hold the PM accountable and by which mechanisms.

It appears that what I referenced is not codified into law, but we do it anyways. Or at least, I know we did it 2 terms ago and I am pretty sure it was done for some of the last term as well. Your issue is that you haven't been here long enough to see a cabinet that consistently did it. While I do agree with codifying that the cabinet should do that, I disagree with mandating what should be in people's campaigns. If they don't put things that satisfy the voters, then they don't get elected.

Also what does the WA have to do with anything?