Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: May 5461
Next month in: 01:20:10
Server time: 10:39:49, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (3): hnp19 | Kiwiis | MyungLuth | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Cabinet Proposal of March 2092

Details

Submitted by[?]: National People's Gang

Status[?]: defeated

Votes: This bill presents the formation of a cabinet. It requires more than half of the legislature to vote yes. Traditionally, parties in the proposal vote yes, others (the opposition) vote no. This bill will pass as soon as the required yes votes are in and all parties in the proposal have voted yes, or will be defeated if unsufficient votes are reached on the deadline.

Voting deadline: January 2093

Description[?]:

Proposing a Cabinet

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date00:21:29, August 08, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Cabinet Proposal of March 2092
MessageA cabinet without the largest or third largest party. Truly representative of the peoples wishes as expressed in their voting.

Date00:35:01, August 08, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Cabinet Proposal of March 2092
Messagethe last coalition also omitted the largest party.

meanwhile, the four-party government coalition gained seats, thanks to a massive comeback by the DSP. Enough votes to continue.

we would suport this, or alternatively be willing to support a cabinet that included the new Lodamun Peoples Coalition which has indicated it is moving to the left.

Date10:29:03, August 08, 2005 CET
From National People's Gang
ToDebating the Cabinet Proposal of March 2092
MessageThis cabinet made good progress in the last government and was rewarded with a positive response from the electorate.

While the People's Coalition refocus is encouraging, we feel it's too soon to risk relying on them in government. Its predecessor's track record as power-broker between left and right wrought mayhem with proposals and counter-proposals changing the law so frequently it became unmanageable.

Support from the People's Coalition for this cabinet proposal now and commitment to this coalition's agenda should be rewarded with inclusion in a mid-term cabinet reshuffle.

Date12:23:17, August 08, 2005 CET
FromLodamun Centre-Left Coalition
ToDebating the Cabinet Proposal of March 2092
MessageThe PCL will oppose this Cabinet, only formally. It however has our full support, as it has shown since the 2088 elections that it is a good combination for a Cabinet.

Date12:24:43, August 08, 2005 CET
FromLodamun Centre-Left Coalition
ToDebating the Cabinet Proposal of March 2092
Message((BTW one of the main sticking points with me is that the GA, relatively new in Lodamun, gets the HoG spot...))

Date15:55:37, August 08, 2005 CET
FromLodamun Centre-Left Coalition
ToDebating the Cabinet Proposal of March 2092
MessageConsidering that the Cabinet has enough votes from the rest of the left-leaning parties to pass, our vote remains negative. We must however reiterate our full support for this Cabinet, and we are confident it will lead Lodamun forward well.

Date16:47:42, August 08, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Cabinet Proposal of March 2092
Messagewe are accepting the head of government position with thanks. However for the record we want to explain Green policy on cabinet-making clear.

All our former cabinet ministers did not stand for re-election. We believe in term limits and are enforcing the principle on our own party members. We will also commit right now to the principle of rotation among the governing coalition. The DSP (one of Lodamun's younger parties) provided the head of government last term, and the CNT/AFL for the shortened term before that.

Zebedee Tungak is our nominee for head of government, but Mr. Tungak is making an advance commitment to step down in a mid-term cabinet reshuffle to allow another party to provide the Prime Minister, barring any strong objections from our coalition partners. No Green politician will serve in any office long enough for the inevitable corruption of governing to set in. Green oppose dynastic rule, and believe in rotation of offices, term limits, open and accountable government.

we hope that the newly-formed Lodamun People's Coalition will compile the sort of record that will allow us to welcome it into government when it comes time for a cabient reshuffle.

Date21:17:48, August 08, 2005 CET
FromRoyal Conservative Party
ToDebating the Cabinet Proposal of March 2092
MessageI do not feel it is fair or right or democratic to completely exclude TiS and ASP from government. Therefore I have registered my vote against this Cabinet. Although this vote means nothing at the moment, I simply wish to register my objection to the system proposed.

Date21:30:36, August 08, 2005 CET
FromCNT/AFL
ToDebating the Cabinet Proposal of March 2092
MessageWe draw the Conservative and Unionist Party's attention to the Inclusive Consensus Act ( http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=5644 ), an law blatantly disregarded by the Adam Smith Party. There is no hope of a representative cabinet while parties break laws designed to foster parliamentary co-operation.

Date23:09:35, August 08, 2005 CET
FromDemocractic Socialist Party of Lodamun
ToDebating the Cabinet Proposal of March 2092
MessageI, though on the left, believe that the cabinet still should be more representative.

If one or more of the libertarian parties is included, however, I'd still like to remain as Secretary of Defense.

Not supported

Date23:41:22, August 08, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Cabinet Proposal of March 2092
Messagethe trouble is that both ASP and TIC refuse to serve in a cabinet with Equitista. That makes a representative cabinet tricky, as these are the three largest parties.

Date01:11:35, August 09, 2005 CET
From National People's Gang
ToDebating the Cabinet Proposal of March 2092
MessageThe libertarian parties are included, the laissez-faire capitalists are not, not because they are laissez-faire capitalists, but because they would refuse to serve anyway.

Date01:18:11, August 09, 2005 CET
FromCNT/AFL
ToDebating the Cabinet Proposal of March 2092
MessageThe laissez-faire capitalists refuse to honour the inclusive consensus act, there is no reason why we, when we have the majority, should offer them cabinet positions. We urge you to reconsider your vote.

Date01:25:09, August 09, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Cabinet Proposal of March 2092
MessageWe draw the CNTs attention and the CUP's attention to the fact that the Inclusive Consensus Act was repealed.

http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=9292

We request an apology from the CNT for these false accusations against us..

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 188

no
     

Total Seats: 262

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: It is the collective responsibility of the players in a nation to ensure all currently binding RP laws are clearly outlined in an OOC reference bill in the "Bills under debate" section of the nation page. Confusion should not be created by displaying only some of the current RP laws or displaying RP laws which are no longer current.

    Random quote: "Because we don't think about future generations, they will never forget us." - Henrik Tikkanen

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 80