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: Conservative Liberal Mandate
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic National Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2372
Description[?]:
| The people clearly want conservative liberal policies. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on advertising
Old value:: Only advertising that meets certain set standards is permitted.
Current: All advertising is permitted.
Proposed: All advertising is permitted.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: The state owns all defence industries.
Current: The state owns all defence industries.
Proposed: Defence industries are privately owned and not subsidised.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Energy regulation.
Old value:: Energy provision is left to local governments.
Current: Energy is provided by private companies but the prices they can charge are regulated.
Proposed: Energy is provided by private companies which are not subject to any special regulations.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The right to gamble.
Old value:: Gambling is legal, but only in private homes and casinos with special licences.
Current: Gambling is legal across the nation, no regulation whatsoever.
Proposed: Gambling is legal across the nation, no regulation whatsoever.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on industry and subsidies to industrial operations.
Old value:: The government acts as an investor of last resort, by nationalizing failing industries that provide vital goods or services.
Current: The government acts as an investor of last resort, by nationalizing failing industries that provide vital goods or services.
Proposed: The government does not intervene in the market nor provide any form of subsidies/relief to industries.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning phone services.
Old value:: The state subsidizes the phone service of low income families, and regulates the rates providers can charge for phone service.
Current: There are no regulations on phone service.
Proposed: There are no regulations on phone service.
Article 7
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the export of weapons to other nations.
Old value:: The government must approve all arms sales on a case by case basis.
Current: The government allows all arms to be exported freely.
Proposed: The government allows all arms to be exported freely.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:27:45, March 09, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Conservative Liberal Mandate |
| Message | Of course, what red blooded Likatonian of the 20% or so that voted ConLib in the last parliamentary election would not want to be tricked by false advertising into buying crap? |
| Date | 21:41:49, March 09, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Conservative Liberal Mandate |
| Message | Still our 18% support is twice as much as your 9% support. If you were really populist, you'd give the people what they want, which is clearly Conservative Liberal policies. Obviously Axis Mundi is affecting the way your party thinks. |
| Date | 21:56:01, March 09, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Conservative Liberal Mandate |
| Message | We believe your party's 18% support was due to the fact that the only other right-wing economic party has left-- so most of their supporters are voting ConLib now. Meanwhile, the AMPSD are similar ideogically to the CivLibs and fairly similar to AMR. So we split the economically enlightened vote with them. We expect the ConLibs to often be the biggest party now, but that's because no one else consistently thinks like the ConLibs and the 18% of the populace who are pro-aristocracy have nowhere else to go. Populism is not what you think: It is support for the common, middle class, person. For rightist populists, that means support for them against foreigners, minorities, and the poor. For leftist populists, that means support for them against the corporate elite. As left-leaning, or center-left, populists, we hold the left-populist stand about the corporate elite but moderate stands on the right-populist positions (limiting, but not banning, immigration, for example; a tough stand on crime and military matters; although we are just plain pro-helping the poor). |
| Date | 22:18:00, March 09, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Conservative Liberal Mandate |
| Message | Well the socialists, former LITP and LRM have backed an awful lot of our previous Free Market bills, so you can't throw that one at us. |
| Date | 22:18:35, March 09, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Conservative Liberal Mandate |
| Message | The people clearly don't like the PSD's. Perhaps if you removed that horrible "AM" from your party name, things might be different. |
| Date | 02:11:43, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Conservative Liberal Mandate |
| Message | Removing all regulation, and allowing terrorists to attack us with our own weapons industry - are not the hallmarks of 'conservatism', or being 'liberal'. The ConLibs are pandering to big business. Removing ALL protection from the buyer is not a progressive policy, it is corporate nepotism of the worst kind. The ConLibs might have us change our national motto to 'Let the Buyer Beware'. |
| Date | 02:46:09, March 10, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Conservative Liberal Mandate |
| Message | Do the parties voting for this bill recognize they are voting in favor of false advertising, in favor of exporting nuclear arms to anyone who wants to buy them, even to use against us, and in favor of letting energy monopilies rip consumers off? We expect that sort of horror from the ConLibs, but we think the SSP and AELIP know better. |
| Date | 03:29:54, March 10, 2007 CET | From | AM Feminazi Movement | To | Debating the Conservative Liberal Mandate |
| Message | This is something we cannot support. |
| Date | 03:39:40, March 10, 2007 CET | From | AM Feminazi Movement | To | Debating the Conservative Liberal Mandate |
| Message | After some discussions within the party, we have since reversed our decision and will back this. |
| Date | 11:41:18, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Conservative Liberal Mandate |
| Message | Good. Thank you all for your support. It is for the greater good, trust me. |
| Date | 04:55:55, March 11, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Conservative Liberal Mandate |
| Message | We strongly oppose this bill, but in a strange twist will vote for it-- given that it is passing without our votes-- to give us room to try to overturn many of its awful aspects without appearing to the voters as ideological extremists. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 161 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 38 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When it comes to creating a Cultural Protocol in a Culturally Open nation, players are not necessarily required to provide a plausible backstory for how the nation's cultural background developed. However, the provision of a plausible backstory may be a factor in whether Moderation approves the Cultural Protocol if players in surrounding nations question its appropriateness for their region of the game map. |
| Random quote: "The whole uncivilized bunch on the opposite benches can get stuffed." - Craig Warwick, former Dranian politician |