The Issue
Opposition newspapers have accused the government of abusing its control over the filibuster ban, which it can use to limit the length of legislative debate. You have consulted multiple people in search of solutions.
The Debate
1."Now, now, my friend," smiles the wealthiest CEO in the Gambling industry, reclining in a shady corner, "We simply can't have a few radicals dictate government policy to us. After all, we do know what's best, don't we? First it's this reform, next it's a slew of unproductive economic policies, and then before you know it they're limiting campaign donations. You can see that some issues have no merit, and are simply not worthy of debate. Perhaps we should even halt the debate before such silliness even begins...?" The CEO hands you a wad of Smeerps. "You agree. Now there's a good leader."
2."I think we can all see the benefits of the filibuster ban," says political science professor, Anne-Marie Goethe. "But it's also true that putting it in the hands of the reigning party coalition is a dangerous centralisation of power. Why not simply have an independent, representative committee to decide what issues are worthy of a lengthy debate? It might be a tad erratic in its priorities, but at least it would give the power back to the people. That's a good thing, right?"
3."The government, all the way up to Leader, has used this ban as a way to control parliament," declares Opposition Whip May Sato, speaking from the Floor, "They're perfectly happy to let debates about the most inconsequential of matters rage on for hours, but when it comes to a serious discussion of Leader's murky ties to prominent members of the Gambling industry or policies genuinely aimed at helping the general public, rather than a select few, the debate comes to a quick close. We must overturn the filibuster ban, post-haste. And I think it is clear to all who suffer from this. That's right, my friends, ladies and gentlemen, casual onlookers, convenient family members, cultural attachés, politically active tourists and constituents, both loyal and traitorous to the greater cause; the people. The people suffer the injustices of a government pandering to its corporate cronies, its oligarchic overlords, its necessary nepotists, if you will. They suffer the delirious - ah - deleterious effects of a government sans filibuster, sans fairness, sans freedom! This ridiculous policy ignores the fact that some things require longer and more serious deliberation - as does, indeed, this very issue. But I am diverging from my abundantly clear point, supported by the voices of a thousand-song crowd outside this very building. And while we might quibble over the numbers - a thousand, I hear you cry? Tens - hundreds! - of thousands, surely? But this ignores the fundamental spirit of the times - zeitgeist, if you will - that we stand against this filibuster ban clearly and unwaveringly. Anyway, a discussion of the genuinely humanitarian policies my party espouses, which require a debate of adequate length for the complexities of which to be fully understood, are quickly relegated as the government trots out its latest quick-fix or vote-snatching policy. Now, to move onto my second point of four-hundred-and-thirty-eight of my first speech - I will, of course, pass over to my comrade on the bench in due course." The security guards by the door notice your discreet signal and step quietly towards the Whip's podium. "Perhaps we should investigate further… excuse me…?" stammers the Whip, as your guards gingerly carry him away. "Ah … yes, thank you for your time."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
