Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: December 5460
Next month in: 02:51:52
Server time: 13:08:07, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): Brazil25 | 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: Defence Bill

Details

Submitted by[?]: Royal Conservative 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: January 2105

Description[?]:

Privatising defence industries makes little sense as the government is the biggest customer of the defence industries and as such the government is vulnerable to profiteering by defence companies.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date04:00:57, August 31, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Defence Bill
MessageNo thank you. There is no reason for the state to own any industry at all. There is a plentiful supply of defence equipment, provided from both national and offshore compaies, we do not see any need to spend extra money to produce what would inevitably be below standard equipment.

Date04:59:26, August 31, 2005 CET
From Tuesday Is Coming
ToDebating the Defence Bill
MessageWasnt the CUP conservative? Or so they claimed?

Date14:49:48, August 31, 2005 CET
FromRoyal Conservative Party
ToDebating the Defence Bill
MessageIn certain matters. The word 'moderate' means a fair amount.

Date14:54:36, August 31, 2005 CET
FromRoyal Conservative Party
ToDebating the Defence Bill
MessageAs the CUP's party description states, I believe, that in certain areas, a mixed market attitude is the most practical to take. Defence is an industry vital to the nation's survival and as such we believe that some aspects of defence industries should be handled by the government in order to lower costs and ensure a high level of standards.

Date16:45:40, August 31, 2005 CET
FromCooperative Commonwealth Federation
ToDebating the Defence Bill
MessageConservatism, historically, requires a strong role for the state. It is historic liberalism which spawned individual-rights thinking (Adam Smith was a great laissez-faire liberal, for instance). Conservatives have traditionally prized the role of a moderate and paternalistic government, and rejected "libertarian" thinking. Traditioanlly conservatives opposed free trade, liberals favoured it. Only in recent days has this begun to change with the arrival of neo-conservatism, which is really neo-liberalism. Even in the USA, a country founded on radical liberalism that now calls itself conservatism, a decent political science course will reveal this. Reading a little Edmund Burke is a good way to get a sense of this tradition.

Date20:47:39, September 01, 2005 CET
FromAdam Smith Party
ToDebating the Defence Bill
MessageRight wing thinking has two major lines, a statist line, which leads to the traditional class structure Tory policies of the pre Hayek days, and the neo liberal economic lines of Thatcher etc.
Edmund Burke only deals with Toryism, and not with neo-libralism. CUP appears to be a traditional Tory.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
     

Total Seats: 196

no
  

Total Seats: 83

abstain
 

Total Seats: 21


Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there.

Random quote: "I am loyal to the ideas, not to the institutions." - Cyro Aquila, former Selucian politician

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 62