Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: October 5474
Next month in: 01:21:55
Server time: 06:38:04, April 25, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): Ost | 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: Infrastructure reform

Details

Submitted by[?]: Academics Party

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: November 2562

Description[?]:

some changes to prevent waste of energy - increased efficiency, reduced costs- and homelessness

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date18:27:28, April 14, 2008 CET
From Capitalistic Liberal Front
ToDebating the Infrastructure reform
MessageOnly agree with article 3. so no

Date22:25:16, April 14, 2008 CET
From Academics Party
ToDebating the Infrastructure reform
Messageconcerning article one and two, we see nothing but a competitive evolution in price and technology. Yet, the regional governments still has the opportunity to regulate overproduction by owning and maintaining their own power grids. Article one and two fill each other out. What is your point of view, Capitalistic Liberal Front? We stand to negotiate if you have any better suggestion.
At the same time, we understand that we share the same interest in increasing the private sector, right?

Date22:54:59, April 14, 2008 CET
From Christian Falangist Party
ToDebating the Infrastructure reform
MessageWe aren't fond of the idea of subsidizing rent, but other than that this bill represents a definite improvement. We will support it.

Date22:44:17, April 15, 2008 CET
From Capitalistic Liberal Front
ToDebating the Infrastructure reform
MessageI belive article 1 and 2 should stay as they are. nr 1 because i belive private and public powerstations should exict side by side, and nr 2 is simply because i think this is a state matter.

Date12:35:42, April 16, 2008 CET
From Academics Party
ToDebating the Infrastructure reform
MessageIf changes is to be made, we need both articles. Regional power grids will increase business. Public powerstations has the opportunity to dominate the market, that is why we want them to be private. Regional powergrids will see to that no overproduction will happen, so this is a totally safe reform.
As for article three, we have inspected the budget and there is enough money. Sorry Christian Falangist Party, but we can't remove it. Thanks for supporting one and two though.
We hope others see what we see, so we'll pass this to voting.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 100

no
    

Total Seats: 172

abstain
 

Total Seats: 28


Random fact: Information about the population of each country can be found on the Population Information thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8663

Random quote: "The radical right is so homophobic that they're blaming global warming on the AIDS quilt." - Dennis Miller

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 66