Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: March 5461
Next month in: 01:13:13
Server time: 02:46:46, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): 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: National Industry Legislation Ammendment

Details

Submitted by[?]: United Blobs

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: October 2119

Description[?]:

Under the current legislation (http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=8224) three types of industry are nationalised:-
1) Public Transport
2) Public Utilities
3) Health Care

None of these can truely be classed as industries, they are all services. Numbers 1 and 3 are/will be dealt with in their own bills with more appropriate proposals. We therefore propose that all these remain nationalised but the incorrect proposal be removed.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date02:16:46, October 01, 2005 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the National Industry Legislation Ammendment
MessageNo, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Now thats out of the way...

We refuse to nationalise failing industries. Public industires are to operated in order to provide for the public good, no more, no less. Should a private industry, which would be operating outside of the boundaries laid out above, fail, then that is a cause for concern to the private investors and not the government. The Government should not be providing for failing private industries, they should only operate those industries deemed in the public good (most of which are laid out in the bill above). Because of which, changing the laws would be unacceptable as those vital services would already be provided by government, so why would we wish to increase expenditure on nationalising failing private industries.
They are either operated publically, and provide services as required, or they are private and are at the whim of the market, either or, but not both.

Date11:06:36, October 01, 2005 CET
FromUnited Blobs
ToDebating the National Industry Legislation Ammendment
MessageChanged proposal. As I doubt the CSP will accept this then this bill and the final proposal to go with it will depend entirely on the LPU

Date11:38:11, October 01, 2005 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the National Industry Legislation Ammendment
MessageI still there is no need to change the proposal from its current law as it covers those industries that should be nationalsied to provide for public services, but does not have us interfere in the market through subsidies (something we would point out is already wrong as subsidies are provided to farmers).

Date14:07:09, October 01, 2005 CET
From Liberal-Progressive Union
ToDebating the National Industry Legislation Ammendment
MessageYes! I will gladly and graciously support your wonderful bill!

Date14:31:12, October 01, 2005 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the National Industry Legislation Ammendment
MessageWe again point out that the current law is the correct proposal as the Government only operates certain industries. This change would force the Government into subsidising private industries, something which should not happen, nor be encouraged, as all it does is guarantee that unproductive private industry has a get out clause.

Date14:34:30, October 01, 2005 CET
FromUnited Blobs
ToDebating the National Industry Legislation Ammendment
Message"This change would force the Government into subsidising private industries," - From the proposal "The government does not intervene in the market nor provide any form of subsidies/relief to industries."

Date15:43:28, October 01, 2005 CET
From Liberal-Progressive Union
ToDebating the National Industry Legislation Ammendment
MessageI am suprised at this bill UB, it was on my agenda but I didn't think it would have any support, like my privatising the waste disposal bill...

Date15:52:27, October 01, 2005 CET
FromUnited Blobs
ToDebating the National Industry Legislation Ammendment
MessageI just decided that there was no real purpose to the current law when so much of it can be covered by other legislation. The current parliament has made it so much easier to get some bills passes hence this and most of my other bills. Of course it's got nothing to do with trying to make myself more popular...

Date18:19:43, October 01, 2005 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the National Industry Legislation Ammendment
MessageApologies, I misread the proposal.
However, we still maintain that the current legislation is the correct one. Private companies do not provide services for the public good and would therefore require expensive Government regulation to guarantee services. This proposal introduces possible damaging effects into our economy because no longer can the public sector guarantee that services will be provided for.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 201

no
   

Total Seats: 138

abstain
  

Total Seats: 61


Random fact: Moderation will not approve a Cultural Protocol request within the first 48 hours of it being requested. This is in order to give other players a chance to query the proposed changes, if they wish to do so. Moderation may be approached for advice on a proposed change, but any advice proffered should always be understood under the provisio that no final decision will be made until at least 48 hours after the request has been formally submitted for approval.

Random quote: "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." - Mahatma Gandhi

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 60