[Rakas21]

That's not what he meant. He meant more along the lines of: in real life, lack of banking regulation causes the partial collapse of the financial system (again). However, in the MHoC, legislation was passed which would have prevented that happening should the MHoC legislation have been real. Therefore, what happens? Do we treat it as though in MHoC-land, the financial collapse never happened? Or do we treat it as though MHoC-laws had no effect, and the financial collapse happened in MHoC-land?

Technically the TSR budget is not £127bn in deficit so we have already ignored RL to a degree. Its a tough question but i think that were we to have lots of fully costed bills then we could attempt to work out the impact on growth versus RL. In your example we would go with the assumption then that such regulation did impact us but the economy still lost 5% rather than 3% for instance.

That'd never work, because everyone would argue about how successful each other's bills would be.

True, i think many people like the fact that on non-economic bills they do not have to worry about cost. Probably the reason why budgets on TSR are so infrequent.

Essentially i have to acknowledge that while i do not buy the activity argument (i think most people do not let past bills hinder them), we have to have a connection with RL as we cannot campaign on the premise that we have a callosal budget surplus at a time when the average TSR electorate knows that in RL we are making massive cuts.

[TopHat]

(Original post by Rakas21)
He did actually raise a good point in the other thread about possible bill solutions which is why i am considering it (will copy it and edit into this post in the next few minutes).

Thank you for considering it. I'm genuinely trying to help the House, here. This isn't being done for any personal gain, but rather the activity of the House, and I am very keen for input from everyone.

My problem here is still the time constraint as those could have been very active terms or very quiet terms (contrast the 9th parliament with 68 submissions with the 15th parliament which had 19 submissions), thus i think a rule around 300 proposed bills may be better with the caveat that upto 50 of the passed bills can remain enacted (parties would equal choice) and that they would have ten days during the election period to decide these, that way the important stuff would kept but we would be yanked back to reality every so often.

I think it's important we can't retain anything, that would defeat the point. The bills most likely to be preserved are also the bills people are most likely to want to talk about. For example, I reckon everyone would want to preserve the Marriage Act, but that's also a bill everyone would want to discuss, if you see what I mean? Additionally, the bills preserved are most likely to be the ones with the biggest diversion from real life! So that doesn't help the problem in your post above.

I agree with activity, I hadn't thought of that. The only trouble is, what happens if that 300 number happens right in the middle of Parliament? How about something slightly more subtle, like:

"For each Bill successfully enacted, reduce the Repeal Tally by 1. When the Repeal Tally equals 0, all Bills, Motions, Referendums and Petitions will be repealed immediately following the next General Election. After a General Election in which this has occurred, reset the Repeal Tally to 300."

That way it can't happen in the middle of Parliaments, but follows your activity criteria.

[toronto353]

(Original post by TopHat)
I know. In all honesty, this is why it won't pass. Everyone who can vote is someone who is an MP already, and therefore is happy with the current system. People around now are the people most likely to still be around in 4 years, and therefore be the ones who would occasionally have to see repeat debates. All the people who would be here, if not for the pre-existing laws, can't vote! The niche clientele will obviously vote to sustain said niche clientele.

That said, I'd like to think we could look beyond personal interest.

I'm definitely open to looking beyond personal interest, but I just need a great reason to do so. It has the potential to do so, but I think that, to do so, you need to examine why the GRA didn't attract active new members (to clarify what I mean by new members more). What about holding a vote within each party, the Speaker administering the vote, on this issue allowing all members to vote? 4 out of 6 parties would need to support it for a full repeal to pass. That would allow the mechanism to be in the Constitution, but not actually force any repeal.

To an extent it does, once per (roughly) 4 years. That said, if you have any better solutions for "re-aligning" the MHoC with the real world, I'm all ears.

See above. I'll clarify here though. We submit an amendment which allows the mechanism for a repeal on the following lines. Every two years say, a vote is held in each party administered by the Speaker asking whether they want all the legislation repealed. If a majority of party members vote yes, then that party is classed as having a yes vote, same for the no vote. The parties each count as having one vote in the final grand ballot. The number of yes voting parties and the number of no voting parties is compared and if 4 out of 6 parties vote for a repeal, then a repeal happens. If not, then a two year wait. This binds it in the Constitution, but also still allows for another GRA.

Confusing? How? "After a long enough period of time, we start again." It's not that confusing for older members. If you were to say it is tedious for older members, I'd agree. However, how many current MPs have been active in the House longer than 4 years? I'd argue it is a small number, and I'd say that the number of MPs who would benefit from being able to discuss a wider range of material would outweight the number of MPs who have to endure a re-run of some bills.

Are you still thinking about the partial repeal or a full repeal?

No, it eliminates one of the barriers. There are others (which I'd also like to look at), but this is a start.

See above question.

What other reason would there be? It would almost certainly boost activity relative to what activity would have been had it not happened. As far as I'm concerned, increasing activity within the House is the most important function. Incidentally, I do understand why it isn't a great reason for you. You are one of the most likely people to still be here in 4 years time. However, think of all the MPs who won't be, think of all the potential posters who won't be. It's a great reason for them, so why not reach out to them?

I would like whatever reasons you have please. You never know, I might have decided to leave in four years. Why am I one of the likeliest? On second thought, don't answer that

[Rakas21]

(Original post by TopHat)
Thank you for considering it. I'm genuinely trying to help the House, here. This isn't being done for any personal gain, but rather the activity of the House, and I am very keen for input from everyone.

I think it's important we can't retain anything, that would defeat the point. The bills most likely to be preserved are also the bills people are most likely to want to talk about. For example, I reckon everyone would want to preserve the Marriage Act, but that's also a bill everyone would want to discuss, if you see what I mean? Additionally, the bills preserved are most likely to be the ones with the biggest diversion from real life! So that doesn't help the problem in your post above.

I agree with activity, I hadn't thought of that. The only trouble is, what happens if that 300 number happens right in the middle of Parliament? How about something slightly more subtle, like:

"For each Bill successfully enacted, reduce the Repeal Tally by 1. When the Repeal Tally equals 0, all Bills, Motions, Referendums and Petitions will be repealed immediately following the next General Election. After a General Election in which this has occurred, reset the Repeal Tally to 300."

That way it can't happen in the middle of Parliaments, but follows your activity criteria.

The problem with not retaining is that you then get old legislation enacted (i myself have my eye on some old legislation later on) and i do not think it should be blocked or limited. It would of course generate debate but i'm just not sure if we need to go through the motions so to speak.

That is what i meant, the election following the mark. Motions and petitions are not saved to my knowledge and are not legally binding anyway so they need not be repealed. Referendums could be repealed with the rest but enacted again via a parliamentary vote post-election as they tend to be much more important and you do not want multiple referendums on the same topic.

[TopHat]

(Original post by toronto353)
I'm definitely open to looking beyond personal interest, but I just need a great reason to do so. It has the potential to do so, but I think that, to do so, you need to examine why the GRA didn't attract active new members (to clarify what I mean by new members more). What about holding a vote within each party, the Speaker administering the vote, on this issue allowing all members to vote? 4 out of 6 parties would need to support it for a full repeal to pass. That would allow the mechanism to be in the Constitution, but not actually force any repeal.

To the first question, I think that activity in the 12th Parliament would probably have been ever lower if not for the GRA. I mean, activity in the 15th Parliament was very different from activity in the 14th Parliament, so there's clearly very large fluctuations in activity even without thinks like the GRA. The 12th Parliament was probably, much like the 15th, simply a rather quiet Parliament naturally, and was only prevented from being worse by the GRA.

above. I'll clarify here though. We submit an amendment which allows the mechanism for a repeal on the following lines. Every two years say, a vote is held in each party administered by the Speaker asking whether they want all the legislation repealed. If a majority of party members vote yes, then that party is classed as having a yes vote, same for the no vote. The parties each count as having one vote in the final grand ballot. The number of yes voting parties and the number of no voting parties is compared and if 4 out of 6 parties vote for a repeal, then a repeal happens. If not, then a two year wait. This binds it in the Constitution, but also still allows for another GRA.

I feel this opens the system to partisan bickering. I think people would make the GRA political, when it really shouldn't be. It's about the activity of the House, not the furthering of anyone one party. If people really feel this is the best solution, I would find this adequate, but I'd prefer a non-partisan approach.

Are you still thinking about the partial repeal or a full repeal?

Full. I don't think partial would work.

I would like whatever reasons you have please. You never know, I might have decided to leave in four years. Why am I one of the likeliest? On second thought, don't answer that

Well, if you do leave in four years, this won't bother you. ;P

[toronto353]

(Original post by TopHat)
To the first question, I think that activity in the 12th Parliament would probably have been ever lower if not for the GRA. I mean, activity in the 15th Parliament was very different from activity in the 14th Parliament, so there's clearly very large fluctuations in activity even without thinks like the GRA. The 12th Parliament was probably, much like the 15th, simply a rather quiet Parliament naturally, and was only prevented from being worse by the GRA.

Absolutely with activity fluctuation, but I'm not sure if you can link that to the GRA. It's just speculation in my mind.

I feel this opens the system to partisan bickering. I think people would make the GRA political, when it really shouldn't be. It's about the activity of the House, not the furthering of anyone one party. If people really feel this is the best solution, I would find this adequate, but I'd prefer a non-partisan approach.

Is the GRA not partisan by the fact that it is voted upon by MPs of different parties? I envisage it working as almost a primary system of sorts if you get what I mean.

Full. I don't think partial would work.

Then disregard my concerns about confusion and the barrier.

Well, if you do leave in four years, this won't bother you. ;P

Nah I'll stay. There'll be no-one to annoy Labour otherwise

[TopHat]

(Original post by toronto353)
Absolutely with activity fluctuation, but I'm not sure if you can link that to the GRA. It's just speculation in my mind.

I agree. There's not a large enough body of evidence either way, which is why I said we have to go by simple logical reason, which is: people are more interested in things that are relevant to them. Over time, the MHoC becomes less and less relevant, with a corresponding effect on people's interest.

Is the GRA not partisan by the fact that it is voted upon by MPs of different parties? I envisage it working as almost a primary system of sorts if you get what I mean.

Yeah, the GRA was partisan, and that's why I think it failed in certain aspects. Lots of people decided to leave the MHoC because of the way in which it was forced through, and that's why I think it was a very imperfect solution. It should have instead been approached in a non-partisan manner - which is what I'm trying to do.

[toronto353]

(Original post by TopHat)
Yeah, the GRA was partisan, and that's why I think it failed in certain aspects. Lots of people decided to leave the MHoC because of the way in which it was forced through, and that's why I think it was a very imperfect solution. It should have instead been approached in a non-partisan manner - which is what I'm trying to do.

Then would my system not work where every party member of every party gets a vote on any future GRA? I can see your concerns about it being partisan, but at least it allows anyone who is involved in any way with the MHoC to have there say without those who don't and who may not stick around for it to affect them voting.

[Rakas21]

Just a note that the GRA has only affected the 13th and 14th parliaments as it was passed near the end of the 12th and enacted at the election. It is very hard to tell what effect it had because while it does not draw in new members it could potentially make it easier for new members who do come, having arrived early in the 12th parliament i do not know whether or not there were a lot of people finding their ideas had already being enacted, we could ask Indie and Thunder about that.

Not really a fan of parties deciding when they want a GRA.

[toronto353]

(Original post by TopHat)
Yeah, the GRA was partisan, and that's why I think it failed in certain aspects. Lots of people decided to leave the MHoC because of the way in which it was forced through, and that's why I think it was a very imperfect solution. It should have instead been approached in a non-partisan manner - which is what I'm trying to do.

Then would my system not work where every party member of every party gets a vote on any future GRA? I can see your concerns about it being partisan, but at least it allows anyone who is involved in any way with the MHoC to have there say without those who don't and who may not stick around for it to affect them voting.

[TopHat]

(Original post by toronto353)
Then would my system not work where every party member of every party gets a vote on any future GRA? I can see your concerns about it being partisan, but at least it allows anyone who is involved in any way with the MHoC to have there say without those who don't and who may not stick around for it to affect them voting.

But it suffers the self-interest problem. The people who can vote, by and large, are the people who won't want a repeal. If we have to make it a vote process, I'd rather it was an open referendum, for all TSR members and not just MPs. They're the people this is designed to attract, so it should be their choice. If they refuse it, then it clearly wouldn't attract them and thus doesn't need passing.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by toronto353)
Then would my system not work where every party member of every party gets a vote on any future GRA? I can see your concerns about it being partisan, but at least it allows anyone who is involved in any way with the MHoC to have there say without those who don't and who may not stick around for it to affect them voting.

The problem with that is that many people in the party memberships are not actively involved and as such may vote without having a clue what they are voting on. Further, it seems more logical to me that we have a limit based around activity.

[TopHat]

(Original post by Rakas21)
The problem with that is that many people in the party memberships are not actively involved and as such may vote without having a clue what they are voting on. Further, it seems more logical to me that we have a limit based around activity.

I think I agree with Rakas21 here. After all, the more activity there is, the faster the MHoC diverges, so it makes sense to tie it activity, so that the MHoC is always realigned at roughly the same point. It's a very clever point.

[toronto353]

(Original post by TopHat)
I think I agree with Rakas21 here. After all, the more activity there is, the faster the MHoC diverges, so it makes sense to tie it activity, so that the MHoC is always realigned at roughly the same point. It's a very clever point.

(Original post by Rakas21)
The problem with that is that many people in the party memberships are not actively involved and as such may vote without having a clue what they are voting on. Further, it seems more logical to me that we have a limit based around activity.

Just a suggestion, but we could have a referendum, but we would need to adapt the referendum section of the Guidance Document/ Constitution (delete as appropriate) so that it didn't count toward the limit otherwise it would mean that another issue couldn't be debated and subjected to a referendum.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by toronto353)
Just a suggestion, but we could have a referendum, but we would need to adapt the referendum section of the Guidance Document/ Constitution (delete as appropriate) so that it didn't count toward the limit otherwise it would mean that another issue couldn't be debated and subjected to a referendum.

Are we talking of a one-off referendum to decide whether we accept the plans for the future or are you talking of a referendum each time we want a Repeal Act.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Rakas21)
Are we talking of a one-off referendum to decide whether we accept the plans for the future or are you talking of a referendum each time we want a Repeal Act.

If we have a referendum each time we want a Repeal Act, then that will count towards the referendum total of one therefore we would need to adapt that part to effectively not count this.

[TopHat]

(Original post by toronto353)
If we have a referendum each time we want a Repeal Act, then that will count towards the referendum total of one therefore we would need to adapt that part to effectively not count this.

I agree. If we did it that way, we'd need to exclude this from the Referendum Count. (so they wouldn't be R2, R3, R4, etc, they'd be RXX, RXX, RXX like the Speaker motion).

What do you think of Rakas's solution of tying it to activity?

[Rakas21]

That is what i disagree with, the average TSR voter has no idea that a backlog of bills may be preventing bill creation/putting off new members. I have no objection to a referendum once we have proposals saying ' in the future would TSR like us to repeal every 300 acts ect...' but i do not believe that there should be a referendum each time.

Rather, i think that we should consult with the people who have being around a while to set a bill limit at which a GRA would be triggered afterward at the next election. By consulting the older ones we can find out roughly when bills became a prohibitive factor (i suggested 300 as that seemed to be the peak term).

[cambo211]

How about we just cross the bridge when we come to it?

Why make it official when we have no idea what could be happening/happened.

When we get to the point when there is 'too much' legislation then we can debate repealing it. Why do we need it set out in advance when stuff should be repealed?

Baffles the mind.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by cambo211)
How about we just cross the bridge when we come to it?

Why make it official when we have no idea what could be happening/happened.

When we get to the point when there is 'too much' legislation then we can debate repealing it. Why do we need it set out in advance when stuff should be repealed?

Baffles the mind.

My point relating to activity logically assumes that bills may become prohibitive at around the same time as last time, hence if it is the case then it may be logical to set some ground rules as suggested.