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: Local devolution: restoring powers to the grassroots level
Details
Submitted by[?]: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
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: July 2110
Description[?]:
| Local communities have been stripped of many powers in recent years. This bill would permit local communtiies, when approved by a referendum, to take these powers back. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Charter school policy (free, privately run, publicly funded schools).
Old value:: Charter schools are not allowed.
Current: Charter school funding, regulation, and development is left up to local governments.
Proposed: Charter school funding, regulation, and development is left up to local governments.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Firefighting services.
Old value:: The government competitively subcontracts firefighting services.
Current: There is a national fire department, funded by the government.
Proposed: Fire prevention and management is left to the local governments.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Pre-school education.
Old value:: The government leaves development of nurseries to the private sector.
Current: The government maintains a system of free publically owned nursery and pre-school educational centres.
Proposed: The government leaves the pre-school education policy to local governments.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The funding of sports clubs.
Old value:: The government does not fund sports clubs; only private ones are allowed.
Current: Local governments decide the funding policy of sports clubs.
Proposed: Local governments decide the funding policy of sports clubs.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:42:56, September 10, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local devolution: restoring powers to the grassroots level |
| Message | Opposed to all 6 |
| Date | 05:07:24, September 11, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Local devolution: restoring powers to the grassroots level |
| Message | We support Articles 3-6 and 1, oppose 2 but are willing to support the bill as it is. |
| Date | 10:05:01, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local devolution: restoring powers to the grassroots level |
| Message | I believe there was a bill, written by DSP, called "spam tastes bad". The bill banned more than 4 proposals in a bill... |
| Date | 17:10:59, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Local devolution: restoring powers to the grassroots level |
| Message | if so, i apologize and will split this up, making article 2 a separate bill so CNT can vote against that. |
| Date | 21:00:41, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local devolution: restoring powers to the grassroots level |
| Message | I dont mind...I just thought you should be aware before POATN tries to bring you up on charges for it... |
| Date | 21:50:21, September 12, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Local devolution: restoring powers to the grassroots level |
| Message | "If so, I apologise" You're streets ahead of the previous offender. |
| Date | 22:17:29, September 12, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local devolution: restoring powers to the grassroots level |
| Message | POATN, I dont fully understand your last comment, only that it is a typically POATN negative remark directed at me. Spam tastes bad hasnt had anybody disobey it... Actions speak louder than words. I removed my bills that were in violation of Procedure Act 2. GA removed his articles that were in violation of Spam tastes bad. I dont see a large difference here, and I wouldnt have minded if this bill was submitted with 6 proposals, I only warned GA before you could attack him on it. The purpose of Procedure Act II and Spam Tastes Bad was to prevent bills from being submitted with a ridiculous amount of proposals in them...Do you remember which party submitted 50+ article bills that required moderator action to remove? |
| Date | 02:40:55, September 13, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Local devolution: restoring powers to the grassroots level |
| Message | It didn't "require moderator action to remove" - moderator action was called because you and your mate are incapable of accepting that you have anything other than a god-given right to apply the rules as you see fit. Within the game there was no rule against such action and it was a perfectly justified demonstration of how democracies require consent of those involved in order to function. Apparently you are incapable of learning that, which is no surprise. The difference between the TiC incident and the GA incident is the apology, as you well know. TiC are incapable of even offering an apology for breaking a law which they vowed to honour because their pride is so brittle it might just snap. |
| Date | 03:50:35, September 13, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local devolution: restoring powers to the grassroots level |
| Message | The proposals you included would have messed up the voting record of every party here. You even called early elections to "clear" your monster bills. They were immature and harmful to everyone, moderator action was required, because the alternative was impossible, for you to prevent the situation from occuring. Actions speak louder than words. If you were to apologize for your actions, I wouldnt believe you were sincere unless there were other good reasons to believe you. GA or I have already issued more meaningful statements, through our actions and compliance with the law. One more thing POATN, I doubt that I will ever have sufficient reason to apologize to you. I simply dont respect a person like you that much. |
| Date | 09:19:59, September 13, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Local devolution: restoring powers to the grassroots level |
| Message | The apology required is not to me but to parliament. TiC have not issued "more meaningful statements" , an explanation of sorts but no apology. GA offered an immediate apology. Of course, "messing up" the voting record is the point, there is nothing either within the game or in the outside world to say it is "wrong" to "mess up" the voting record of opponents. It's an optional strategy. You created an Opposition and didn't like what you got. In the end, the reason I was given for the moderator withdrawal of the bill was so tenuous that I believe every party here has subsequently broken the same "rule", with the exception of RCP and CofA because they haven't been here that long. I have no need or desire for your respect. |
| Date | 09:56:24, September 13, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local devolution: restoring powers to the grassroots level |
| Message | "The apology required is not to me but to parliament. TiC have not issued "more meaningful statements" , an explanation of sorts but no apology. GA offered an immediate apology." I would have offered an apology if not for the manner it was demanded and the person demanding it. Also the situation in which I was being accused. I proposed 2 bills. These bills contained a total of 6 proposals, one called for early elections and the other proposed an inclusive cabinet(where TiC was the only party losing places). In exchange, other legislation was included in the bills that I wanted. They were bills of compromise, not partisan legislation. I already had several bills of partisan legislation on the table. Given the POATN's immediate and harsh response, all proposals were removed from the bills, with the bills themselves deleted shortly afterwards. No other party has requested an apology, and in any case I didnt believe one was necessary. What is important is the rule of law. If the purpose behind the law is fulfilled(stopping spam), there is no reason to harm someone for having inadvertently transgressed it. You never wanted an apology, you never wanted the law to be followed, you wanted to see how much you could punish or harm Tuesday Is Coming for your own partisan goals. You have done what you can to ruin any compromise moves made by either side. You ridiculed the MLP when I included them in an inclusive cabinet as part of a larger plan, causing me to change the plan and forgo compromise due to the tensions you created. You attacked GA when TiC begain cooperating with them on certain issues, and working toward a better relationship. You attacked CUP in the forum, posting what you later admitted was an outright lie, but claimed that it was ok to do so because of a Lodamun law allowing fiction literature(regardless of forum rules). You spent over a decade annoying the ASP, a party that I know from outside experience has a very high level of patience and especially tolerance for opposing views; as well as a willingness to hold a rational, intelligent discussion with those that are not worth his time. You have shamelessly slandered nearly every party here at one time or another. "Of course, "messing up" the voting record is the point, there is nothing either within the game or in the outside world to say it is "wrong" to "mess up" the voting record of opponents. It's an optional strategy. You created an Opposition and didn't like what you got." Coherency is meant to measure how consistent parties are on issues. For parties who wish to remain consistent without abstention penalties, you made this impossible. This is thoughtless and detracts from the game. At the same time, you prevented all parties from proposing random laws, because the software read them as "already being addressed". Yours was a shameless stall tactic that no other party in Lodamun appreciated. This is akin to your creation and rush to a vote of 7 bills with one line descriptions, done in such a way to abuse game mechanics and reverse recently passed, carefully written bills. In any case, this has negatively impacted the time that I spend writing bills. "In the end, the reason I was given for the moderator withdrawal of the bill was so tenuous that I believe every party here has subsequently broken the same "rule", with the exception of RCP and CofA because they haven't been here that long." You proposed a value for every possible law. Every reasonable person in the game sees that this isn't very nice. No one else has even come close to replicating this action. "I have no need or desire for your respect." Then why do you keep posting? Trying to justify yourself by casting accusations at others? You say you want an apology? You say you want inclusive cabinets? You say you want me to think of the pitiful people who are willing to steal, kill and destroy to achieve their goals, regardless of those who are destroyed in the process? If you want anything from me, I have to respect you first. I have known rational anarchists, socialists, communists, etc. whom I have had significant degrees of respect for. I have been able to hold intelligent conversations with them, I have been able to have civil relations with them. I have made mistakes in the past, which are usually followed quickly by unsolicited apologies from me with attempts to correct or eliminate the effects of the error. This isnt about any of that. |
| Date | 14:34:39, September 13, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Local devolution: restoring powers to the grassroots level |
| Message | A large proportion of what you say in this rant above is lies. What isn't lies is distortion and what isn't distortion is, perhaps, your honest, if somewhat warped, view. As an example of the distortion, despite your accusations, no party has done more - and some have done a lot less - towards achieving compromise. I keep posting because you keep posting. I will continue to do so. |
| Date | 16:02:36, September 13, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local devolution: restoring powers to the grassroots level |
| Message | In that case I know how to shut you up... |
| Date | 19:46:17, September 13, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Local devolution: restoring powers to the grassroots level |
| Message | I was perfectly happy to let your criminal past fade into parliamentary history, it was you who started sniping. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 160 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 112 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where players introduce RP laws to a nation and then leave, Moderation reserves the discretion to declare the RP laws void if they appear to have fallen into disuse. In particular, please bear in mind that a player who is inexperienced with Particracy role-play and has joined a nation as the only party there should not generally be expected to abide by RP laws implemented by previous players who have been and left. |
| Random quote: "Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?" - Ernest Gaines |