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: The Extension of rights, privileges and jurisdiction of local governments.
Details
Submitted by[?]: New Centre and Unionists
Status[?]: defeated
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 2457
Description[?]:
| The UPD, recognising the will of the people and the importance of the role of regionally elected councillors and mayors, recommend the following legislations as a method of extending the power given to the local authorities and government; The appointment of mayors: Local governments determine the method of appointment as each region has various preferences and in some cases the people may wish to have their City Council have their mayoral powers. Energy provision is left to local governments. Local governments may set curfews, but national government does not. National Cultural and Historic Sites and Monuments are left to local councils and governments. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change National, cultural and historic sites and monuments.
Old value:: The state actively protects scenery, localities, cultural, and historical sites; it maintains an agency to preserve them untouched if public interest so requires.
Current: The state actively protects scenery, localities, cultural, and historical sites; it maintains an agency to preserve them untouched if public interest so requires.
Proposed: This matter is left up to the local governments.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Curfew policy (curfew time to be determined in the bill description).
Old value:: Local governments may impose curfews, but only if a state of emergency has been declared.
Current: Local governments may impose curfews, but only if a state of emergency has been declared.
Proposed: Local governments may set curfews, but national government does not.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Energy regulation.
Old value:: Energy is provided by private companies but the prices they can charge are regulated.
Current: Energy is provided by private companies which are not subject to any special regulations.
Proposed: Energy provision is left to local governments.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The appointment of mayors.
Old value:: Citizens elect their mayor directly in a local election.
Current: Local governments determine the method of appointment.
Proposed: Local governments determine the method of appointment.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:26:39, September 15, 2007 CET | From | New Centre and Unionists | To | Debating the The Extension of rights, privileges and jurisdiction of local governments. |
| Message | We, the Union for Progression and Development are firm in our belief that these key policy areas are best kept on a case-by-case basis under the regional governments. We feel that though "Big Government" is the way forward; some exceptions to the rule should be outlined and that is what we hope we have achieved in this bill. We are especially firm concerning the appointment of mayors. Though the "Direct Democracy" approach has worked in Solentia for a long time, we do feel that there are certain cases where local people may be highly appreciative of being given the option of having their local council exercise Mayoral Powers. With regards to energy regulation; companies such as "North-East Gas" may be a cheaper or more reliable source of energy for those in the North East of the country then the National Power Grid. Therefore we wish to give Local governments the chocie of where to get their power and how much power should be permitted to be used. Some local governments wish to try cerfews and some do not; the UPD achnowleges this and wish to giver Local people the right to choose their own preferances. Some regions have more crime and youth problems than others; therfore a cerfew is more neccassary there than in some areas. The thaught that a cerfew is a war-time act is proposterous as many local authorities may choose to "crack-down" on crime via a cerfew as that is the best solution locally. We aim to give Local people the right to look after their own monuments as it has been shown in the past that local people have an affection for their area and want to contribute towards the maintaining it. The government can, though contribute towards and aid the protection of scenery, localities, cultural and historical sites through the nation agency. We hope that ALL Solentian parties will concider what we have said; and will do the right thing for the nation; Give the Power, back to the people. |
| Date | 14:35:32, September 15, 2007 CET | From | New Centre and Unionists | To | Debating the The Extension of rights, privileges and jurisdiction of local governments. |
| Message | Thank you to Mr.Carlisle, our Internal Minister for making this bill possible, and to Ms.Rochelle the chair of our Executive agenda and Judicial Minister for confirming it's power and wording. Thank you both. Elodie Western-Parker; Party Leader. |
| Date | 16:52:35, September 15, 2007 CET | From | Workers Party | To | Debating the The Extension of rights, privileges and jurisdiction of local governments. |
| Message | The Workers Party opposes this bill in general and each of its articles in particular. We don't make the mistake of confusing "the people" with local governments, which can be as autocratic and oppressive as federal government. The protection of our cultural heritage must be enshrined in federal legislation. If a state government were to derelict a national monument, this would not be a problem of the people of that state alone, but of all Solentians. We oppose the standing law on curfews, which we feel is invasive of the citizenry's rights. But there is no sence in transferring the power to impose curfews to the local governments. We wouldn't like the government of Nukeya, for instance, being able to impose a curfew. And we fear the other parties would similarly come to oppose the same in regards of Fuwan very soon. The energy needs of our people are not limited by state boundaries; an efficient energy system must be national (indeed, there are reasons to believe it must be international). And by no means we agree to leave the legislation on election of mayorships to state governments. We cannot allow local dictatorships to arise. The mayors of our cities must be elected by the people. Sen. Ersebet Piantella - Workers Party |
| Date | 17:52:17, September 15, 2007 CET | From | New Centre and Unionists | To | Debating the The Extension of rights, privileges and jurisdiction of local governments. |
| Message | We thank the workers Party for their imput. We are however; sorry that you cannot agree with us on this issue, for the identification of local differences and thw accomodation of regional differences are very important to the UPD. We are sorry if the WP do not feel as strongly on this matter as you do. For example; I find it a simply riddiulous notion to find that you think that a state government would derelict a national monument and we do encourage the use of the National Heritage Agency that would appeal to prevent the dereliction of a national monument. I can appreciate that curfews are something that the WP does not agree with. However the right to do something does not mean that it is an obligation. We urge the WP to see that just because a state can impose a curfew does not mean that it will. In fact; we feel that this legislation will decrease the chances of a curfew being enforced due to the plausibly negative reaction of the populace on the state government. If a state was to impose a curfew; the local people would no doubt issue a complaint and possibly hold a vote of no confidence in the Mayor or council. The energy needs of our people are by no means limited by state boundries and I ask you not to accuse the UPD of saying such because we didnt, we simply said that in some circumstances the local governments may find it more efficient, cost-friendly and ecologically benneficial to use an alternate source of power, therfore by granting the local states the choice of where they get their energy it will allow for them to have a power source or system that is more suitable for them, and not for the country. Choice; not force. I say again; choice not force in responce to your criticism of our policy of mayoral election. Just because a state has the choice of mayor-appointment systems, does not mean that they will choose between democracy and autocracy as you seem to be implying; but will allow them to form other ideas and other solutions to their appointment issues. It will grant the LOCAL PEOPLE choice of how to elect their officials. Why the people of a state would want a dictator as you seem to think they would is quite beyond my, however if that is what the people choose.... Again we remind the WP, there is a significant difference between a right and an obligation. Granting the local and regional authorities and populace the right to choose an alternate system does not mean they will and if they do, then they would do so not because they dislike democracy but because they simply think that the chosen system was a more benneficial and suitable one for their region of Solentia. Surely the WP does not agree with preventing people from having more rights? Please also note Mr.Piantella, that the UPD is fully aware of the difference between people and a state council. However we also know that the state governments are closer TO the people than the national ones, and that sometimes, a national government cant please everyone; but a local government has a better chance. - Mlle.Anna Rochelle- UPD Shadow Justice Minister. |
| Date | 11:51:33, September 16, 2007 CET | From | Labour Party of Solentia | To | Debating the The Extension of rights, privileges and jurisdiction of local governments. |
| Message | We have a question to the UPD. Firstly, we are a party which supports giving power to the people and also power to rebuilding local government and local communities. However, we must take issue with Article 3. Past experiences tell us, that when in a state of emergency- National Government and Local Government both imposing curfews and strict rules is the best way to guide us as a nation through those times of trouble and urgency. So why does the UPD feel it best to take this power away from national government and hand it to local government alotgether? Mike Sullivan, Labour Shadow Minister for Interior Affairs |
| Date | 14:41:59, September 16, 2007 CET | From | New Centre and Unionists | To | Debating the The Extension of rights, privileges and jurisdiction of local governments. |
| Message | Local governments would of course retain the right to set curfews in time of emergency. The UPD feels that the best way to handle public cufew is through the importance of local communities. The fact stands that people feel closer to their local governments then their higher national governments, and due to the political system in Solentia this is of course, truth. However if a curfew is to be enforced; we the UPD feel that a localy enforced curfew would be better accepted and followed than a national one. If the national government called for a nation wide curfew , I have every faith that the local governments would follow suit and do what is best for the nation. We simply felt that the implimentation of curfews would be recieved with a more positive attitude than a nationaly imposed curfew would be. -Mlle.Anna Rochelle; UPD Chair of the Executive Agenda. |
| Date | 17:57:10, September 17, 2007 CET | From | Labour Party of Solentia | To | Debating the The Extension of rights, privileges and jurisdiction of local governments. |
| Message | I'm sorry, but with article 3 which our Party opposes still in place, we cannot back this poll. Mike Sullivan, Labour Shadow Minister for Interior Affairs and Labour Minister with responsibilites for Orame. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 51 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 346 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 28 |
| Random fact: Party organizations are eligible for deletion if they are over 50 in-game years old, do not have at least 1 active member or are historically significant and possess historically significant information. |
| Random quote: "The truly powerful feed ideology to the masses like fast food while they dine on the most rarified delicacy of all: impunity." - Naomi Klein |