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 May 2556
Details
Submitted by[?]: Likaton Coalition of the Willing
Status[?]: passed
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 2557
Description[?]:
| Proposing a Cabinet |
Proposals
Article 1
The responsibilites of Head of Government will be conducted by the 
Likaton Coalition of the Willing
Article 2
The responsibilites of Science and Technology will be conducted by the Commonwealth Workers Army
Article 3
The responsibilites of Food and Agriculture will be conducted by the Commonwealth Workers Army
Article 4
The responsibilites of Environment and Tourism will be conducted by the Commonwealth Workers Army
Article 5
The responsibilites of Trade and Industry will be conducted by the Commonwealth Workers Army
Article 6
The responsibilites of Foreign Affairs will be conducted by the General Confederation of Labour
Article 7
The responsibilites of Internal Affairs will be conducted by the Commonwealth Workers Army
Article 8
The responsibilites of Finance will be conducted by the Commonwealth Workers Army
Article 9
The responsibilites of Defence will be conducted by the Commonwealth Workers Army
Article 10
The responsibilites of Justice will be conducted by the General Confederation of Labour
Article 11
The responsibilites of Infrastructure and Transport will be conducted by the Commonwealth Workers Army
Article 12
The responsibilites of Health and Social Services will be conducted by the Commonwealth Workers Army
Article 13
The responsibilites of Education and Culture will be conducted by the Likaton Coalition of the Willing
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:29:30, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | As always, we are glad to support in any capacity. |
| Date | 21:33:48, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | A minute ago the APOL were saying that they wouldn't serve with the PCA, who you described as "commie rebel terrorist scum." -Can your pary pick a stance and stick with it for just one year, perhaps? But again, the cabinet is poorly designed/ |
| Date | 21:34:34, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | It's strange that you don't even need the PCA, yet you include them? We think the PCA should vote yes to this and allow this cabinet. |
| Date | 21:35:42, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | Heh. Who said artists and poets had to be consistent? According to the CPL, any cabinet that they don't like, is poorly designed. It sounds like a bag of grapefruits, to us. |
| Date | 21:36:22, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | We are giving them a chance. We don't feel they are the best choice, but you don't want in, so... |
| Date | 21:36:55, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | The PCA votes against. Bit of advice to the APOL- you have to propose a cabinet that includes both the PCA and the LRA because they are 99% the same according the electoral history. |
| Date | 21:38:26, April 04, 2008 CET | From | General Confederation of Labour | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | We haven't voted yet... but we're abstaining because of our coalition with the LRA. |
| Date | 21:38:30, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | That is precisely why we won't. We don't need both sets... |
| Date | 21:39:22, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | "We haven't voted yet... but we're abstaining because of our coalition with the LRA." Actually you voted against but then changed your vote to abstain. |
| Date | 21:40:20, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | PCA, if you choose to ignore this offer of a power share, we can't guarantee you'll get another... |
| Date | 21:40:34, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | "That is precisely why we won't. We don't need both sets..." Yeh, but it's the PCLRA. It's the one party really. There's a 99.99% correlation. |
| Date | 21:41:34, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | Actually, CPL - votes are not binding until a bill passes, fails, is drawn, or expires. So - when the PCA say they 'haven't voted yet'... that's not wrong. |
| Date | 21:41:43, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | "PCA, if you choose to ignore this offer of a power share, we can't guarantee you'll get another... " They already got one that gives them much more power. They would be mad to support a bill that cuts their power in two. Again we thin the PCA should support this bill. |
| Date | 21:41:53, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | and so should the LRA. |
| Date | 21:42:16, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | Actually, we're going to support the cabinet! |
| Date | 21:43:14, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | It still won't stand unless the PCA supports it. (OOC: At least, I think...) |
| Date | 21:45:01, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | (OOC: correct) We urge the PCA to accept this olive branch. Do the Maths....think of the alternatives... |
| Date | 21:45:43, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | Come on PCA, vote yes - for the good of the nation. |
| Date | 21:48:22, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | We urge the PCA to vote as their conscience dictates. If they honestly believe they must abstain, then do it. We ask only that the PCA don't sell their vote. |
| Date | 21:58:24, April 04, 2008 CET | From | General Confederation of Labour | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | We will vote yes because we want the Confederalist Coalition to be a part of the government. We will share our 2 ministries with the LRA. |
| Date | 22:01:18, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | Ohhh this is brilliant. The PCA just surrendered two cabinet ministers and booted the LRA (who has 5 ministers) out of government. Fantastic. Well done PCA. Say bye bye to the Conferalist led Coalition |
| Date | 22:06:51, April 04, 2008 CET | From | General Confederation of Labour | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | What? The coalition controls 2 ministers! How much do you control? |
| Date | 22:10:02, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | PCA, the other cabinet being voted opon gives your party 4 positions and gives the LRA 5 positions. I mean, why do you think we support it? By voting for this cabinet - you cancel the last cabinet - you can only vote for one. I won't explain it any further because it's so hilarious. |
| Date | 22:12:45, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | You can support any number of cabinets, actually. It might be interesting when they all come due, of course - but since they were introduced at different times, absent re-elections, they will just cycle through as they come up. |
| Date | 22:15:15, April 04, 2008 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of May 2556 |
| Message | Yeh, but this, being the latest proposal, will be the ultimate coalition (provided no others get proposed and supported). I'll shut up now because it's so funny. I just want to see if a certain party realises the mistake. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 575 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 91 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| 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: "Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men." - John Stuart Mill |