There has been a lot of stink raised by various people (usually people who were leaders of the defunct Moderate Radical Party, for some interesting reason) around members of Government parties deciding to Clark various bills that the first group of people have objections to. There seems to be an idea that they are not being "properly Hoppered" and it is somehow inappropriate to Clark them while certain people (some of whom aren't even members of the Ziu?) still have problems with them.
A couple of points:
1) I don't think that people who, in some cases, made a conscious withdrawal from Talossa's legislative politics have a real right to complain when those who have been elected make a note of their objections, and plough on anyway. For me, I welcome concerns and comments, especially polite ones, and I hope you've all seen that I do deal with them rather ignore them. But the questions I ask myself when Clarking a bill are as follows:
- am I satisfied with it, given the comments of others?
- will it get the necessary majority?
Pleasing
everybody with my bills is not a priority. Pleasing people who have strong objections with which I disagree, and who do not have a vote or political influence in the Ziu, is quite frankly "nice but inessential". If you are drawing the conclusion that if the people who have objections with the Government parties' agreed legislative project should make damn sure there is an effective party which represents their views in the next Cosa (and on lobbying Senators in the meantime), then
damn right.
2) While we're speaking on influence and politeness the other day, several of my critics don't seem to have gotten the memo that comments which are phrased in aggressive, pugnacious and condescending manners are far less likely to be taken heed of. Or, to put it another way - I'm not REALLY predisposed to listen to your suggestions on legislation if you just called me an "asshat" in the OldWitt Shoutbox.
3) Current law on the Hopper states:
No bill may be published in a Clark unless it has spent at least ten days in the Hopper as a legislative proposal, except according to H.6.1.
Some criticism has taken the form of criticising the proposers of bills for amending them quite soon before Clarking them - even if that amendment has come in response to criticism! Would these people prefer we change the law to read:
No bill may be published in a Clark unless it has spent at least ten days unamended in the Hopper as a legislative proposal, except according to H.6.1.