We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Vote of no confidence
Details
Submitted by[?]: Likaton Coalition of the Willing
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2356
Description[?]:
| We believe that the PLPL, and in particular Finance Minister Kinsley, have lost control of our national budget, and can no longer be trusted to hold our purse strings. We call for Michael Kinsley to resign, and the PLPL to propose a new cabinet, ceding the Finance Minister position to another party. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:31:01, February 07, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Vote of no confidence |
| Message | The national budget was fine until the LITP decided to foist upon us a huge cut in consumption and corporate taxes. We suppose they wished Mr. Kinsley to defund programs in response. We are unwilling to do so, and Mr. Kinsley will not resign. Our budget is barely enough to fund the programs that have been authorized by the Convocation. |
| Date | 00:35:34, February 07, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Vote of no confidence |
| Message | However, in the spirit of compromise, we will propose a cabinet that cedes the finance minister position to another party. We cannot be sure whether it will pass, but we will show the flexibility to allow another party control of the position. |
| Date | 00:46:32, February 07, 2007 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Vote of no confidence |
| Message | The tax adjustments we proposed, to reduce double taxing, were supported by over 60% of the convocation. We are concerned that the PLPL, and their cronies in the SSP, are trying to buck the responsibilities of sensible government. There is a danger of your party causing a divide in the convocation that will force the power to shift to the right, a measure which we would view as catastrophic, but see as becoming more and more inevitable. |
| Date | 01:01:06, February 07, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Vote of no confidence |
| Message | The tax adjustments you proposed and were passed would, we believe, have not passed on their own. The RWL party probably voted for them, for example, due to the moral conservatism and other aspects they liked within the huge bill; but in general the RWL party has never been a big tax and budget cutting party. One thing to remember is that 5.8% of the GDP being used for government programs is a very small amount. We have tried to straddle the fence between those who want more defense spending and those who want to greatly diminish it and have been very cautious in that area; but we wanted to get government spending in line with the amount of programs we have passed as proposals. We have only cut income taxes from a tax system fashioned by the LITP, and did not attempt to rescind a sales tax cut that did not create a deficit. Now that this one has created a deficit, and we felt that it was irresponsible in terms of funding our programs to make $10 billion in budget cuts, we proposed to bring it back to a level that would balance the budget. We then agreed to what the LITP asked when it accepted our previous budget, that a future surplus would lead to an income tax cut. We will uphold that promise, if we control the finance ministry, regardless, due to the ARLP's support of the consumption tax due to that promise. However, since the LITP was willing to support that budget if that were the case, we find it strange that they now complain about it even as we have accepted the premise. |
| Date | 01:02:32, February 07, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Vote of no confidence |
| Message | The tax adjustments you proposed and were passed would, we believe, have not passed on their own. The RWL party probably voted for them, for example, due to the moral conservatism and other aspects they liked within the huge bill; but in general the RWL party has never been a big tax and budget cutting party. One thing to remember is that 5.8% of the GDP being used for government programs is a very small amount. We have tried to straddle the fence between those who want more defense spending and those who want to greatly diminish it and have been very cautious in that area; but we wanted to get government spending in line with the amount of programs we have passed as proposals. We have only cut income taxes from a tax system fashioned by the LITP, and did not attempt to rescind a sales tax cut that did not create a deficit. Now that this one has created a deficit, and we felt that it was irresponsible in terms of funding our programs to make $10 billion in budget cuts, we proposed to bring it back to a level that would balance the budget. We then agreed to what the LITP asked when it accepted our previous budget, that a future surplus would lead to an income tax cut. We will uphold that promise, if we control the finance ministry, regardless, due to the ARLP's support of the consumption tax due to that promise. However, since the LITP was willing to support that budget if that were the case, we find it strange that they now complain about it even as we have accepted the premise. |
| Date | 13:59:38, February 07, 2007 CET | From | AM Feminazi Movement | To | Debating the Vote of no confidence |
| Message | We feel that the ministers must take responsibility for their actions. Clearly there is a demonstrated issue with regards to a deficit here. We urge all parties currently voting no to reconsider, even if it only for the idea of justice being seen to be done. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 98 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 101 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real life-life nationalities, cultures or ethnicities should not be referenced in Particracy (eg. "German"). |
| Random quote: "The more you observe politics, the more you've got to admit that each party is worse than the other." - Will Rogers |