[daniel_williams]

Bill Anonymity Amendment, UniOfLife

1) The proposer of Bills, Motions and Amendments shall remain anonymous at all times until a vote has concluded.

2) The Speaker may remove anonymity if the proposer has attempted to pass his proposal off as that from another Party or Member with the intention of defaming or damaging them.

3) It is an offence to seek to discover the proposer.

NOTE: We will need to devise some method of enforcing clause 3

[LawBore]

Why is this a good idea (just to get debate started)
Second, how do we hold authors accountable for their bills and have them defend it?

[Owl1867]

I feel if this is to be adopted we need a clause that the author of bills withdrawn before vote should also be revealed. Otherwise a party could just submit many unpopular bills and not be able to be held accountable by the electorate for their proposal. I.e a party could put a bill for first reading segregating all schools then withdraw it and the voters would not know which party held those views.

[Gremlins]

This is dumb. Do you people honestly think we're going to vote for the repeal of the minimum wage or the wrecking of the NHS just because the Bills won't have Tory/Libertarian on top anymore?

[Alasdair]

I disagree strongly with the concept, and I think the execution is flawed as well. What does 'an offence' mean? What's the penalty?

On the off-chance this passes, I shall be announcing my bills and any bill whose author I know of publically at the first opportunity.

[Owl1867]

(Original post by Gremlins)
This is dumb. Do you people honestly think we're going to vote for the repeal of the minimum wage or the wrecking of the NHS just because the Bills won't have Tory/Libertarian on top anymore?

I agree in that I don't think this would make any difference to the outcomes of bills. However I find it gets quite tiresome when people (mainly the Conservatives) can't accept we vote against their bills because we dislike the policy, not merely the name on it (I'm thinking of the economic stimulus bill in particular). i think that by adopting the anonymity thing we might finally be able to debate properly without someone jumping out and accusing anyone who disagrees with them as engaging in petty party politics.

[UniOfLife]

There will obviously be some Bills where anonymity is unnecessary but I think that there will be some where the proposer makes a difference to how people treat it. It also makes a difference to the discussion.

I guess it boils down to whether people prefer that the debate about a Bill is dominated by the contents of the Bill or whether they prefer that the debate is about the proposer and how evil they are

[DayneD89]

How about making it anon only for say the first 3 days? I would find it mush easier to support. Plus we would see if anyone changed their tune. We are likely to know whoes it is after a fe days anyway as that party willbe defending it.

[Alasdair]

(Original post by DayneD89)
How about making it anon only for say the first 3 days?

Something like this I could support. Three days might be too long, as I think it should come out before it goes to vote...

[Jangrafess]

It'll be blindingly obvious who proposed it from the people who are defending it most actively. Nice idea, shame about the execution.

[UniOfLife]

(Original post by Jangrafess)
It'll be blindingly obvious who proposed it from the people who are defending it most actively. Nice idea, shame about the execution.

To be fair (on the execution front) I wrote that in a couple of minutes just to contain the basic idea for discussion. Hence the rather odd "NOTE" at the end. It obviously is a work in progress that I thought we could all work together on if there was some support for the basic principle.

[Jangrafess]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
To be fair (on the execution front) I wrote that in a couple of minutes just to contain the basic idea for discussion. Hence the rather odd "NOTE" at the end. It obviously is a work in progress that I thought we could all work together on if there was some support for the basic principle.

Fair enough.

[ThePants999]

(Original post by DayneD89)
How about making it anon only for say the first 3 days? I would find it mush easier to support. Plus we would see if anyone changed their tune. We are likely to know whoes it is after a fe days anyway as that party willbe defending it.

Pointless. It matters at voting time, not at debating time, and anyone who (shame on them) is influenced by the author of the bill would simply wait to find out the author before voting.

Alas, I agree that this serves no purpose - either the author will become obvious by defending the Bill, or the Bill will get insufficient defence and will fail.

[Eru Iluvatar]

Wont work, simple as that.

[lotsofsnails]

(Original post by LawBore)
Second, how do we hold authors accountable for their bills and have them defend it?

yeah this is why I think it's pointless.

[01kij114]

I will be voting against this, just seems like there will be no accountibility.

[L i b]

I oppose the bill. It seems rather cowardly to present a bill you're not even willing to put your name to.

Personally I'd prefer party bills had a clear proposer and seconder.

[Owl1867]

(Original post by L i b)
I oppose the bill. It seems rather cowardly to present a bill you're not even willing to put your name to.

Personally I'd prefer party bills had a clear proposer and seconder.

But isn't the idea of party bills that the party are in support of the bill. This would only help in cases of disagreement in the party where some people would not like to be as associated with the bill. But isnt that what private members bills are for i.e. to allow a member to express views nit held by the rest of their party.

[Afcwimbledon2]

No - Their should be a choice between anonymity to non-anonymity.

[paperclip]

How would part 3 be enforced? If it's warning points (which is most apt) it'll have to be approved by the moderation team, dismissal from MPship seems a bit harsh :/