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: Peerage Debate
Details
Submitted by[?]: Coalition for National Unity [CNU]
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2953
Description[?]:
| Senator Martin Astor, Leader of the Tory Party. "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate, Firstly, my warm thanks for the fabulous reception I have recieved from my cross-party colleagues upon my appointment as Leader of, what was the CMP, and is now the Tory Party. As you are probably aware the theme of my first programme is "Back to Basics" . It's a simple little slogan, used many-a-time by CMP Leaders in a variety of ways. This time, I want to concentrate on aspects of past Solentian culture and tradition that we either want to keep or get back. Part of that, is the question of Peerage. Now when I say Peerage, there are several connotations that are summened. Primarily, I don't want to start a debate on some sort of hereditory lordly system as is used in some nations abroad. I have spent some time analysing our current system of rewards and honours and have found a gap. I don't feel that the "Honoured Solentian Heroes List" is enough. It doesn't enthuse the citizenry and doesn't really encoruage participation in public life to a great extent. Frankly, the legislation that was brought in was hollow and half-hearted. I want to discuss, party loyalties and policies aside, the sort of encouragement for participation and improvemement of our politics that we offer in this country. I have called this debate a "Peerage" debate because I feel that titles are a great way of encouraging. We keep the title Supreme President as a reminder of what that Office can and should be doing. It is Supreme in authority and respect and loyalty to the nation. We keep the title Senate Warden as a way of reminding ourselves that the office is a one of discipline, respect and observation. Our Supreme court is Supreme because it can overrule our sovereign Senate. Now I know that in the past, my own party has tried to enforce a system of peerage but it was based too-heavily on that of other nations, with Duke's and Earl's and so on. It is my intention of dicsussing a system whereby the Senate, and potentially the Supreme President, can award titles to individuals who have proven to have truely given to Solentian life, culture, economy, history, politics, society and so on. Now it could be that this Senate believes that Lords and so-on are acceptable, it could be that we don't. I don't speculate until I hear opinion. However the important thing to remember is that this is not about land-owning Dukes, but about rewarding the citizens who serve this country in a special way. I hope this has given some food for thought, and I hope to hear all of your opinions." |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:09:21, May 30, 2010 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | "The CPS, realizing that the Tories have the social and political advancement of the Solentian citizen at heart when they suggest a landless system of reward for those citizens who prove themselves to be worthy of recognition, supports a peerage system." CPS Chairwoman Andrea Bryant "Why should the Senate ignore the fact that a significant percentage of those Solentians who contribute to society are in fact land owners? SOME in the CPS support requiring the ownership of land in order to be eligible for titles of nobility. When we implement a system which encourages political activity, why should we not also encourage economic security and mastery?" CPS Senator Alan Bird |
| Date | 20:16:18, May 30, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | "The Tories are intregued by the suggested link between land and contribution however we would require a deeper more prolongued study into the matter in order to become fully supportive. For now, as a first step, we are more interested in the idea of reward that might apply to everyone, similar perhaps to a Knighthood in some older Kingdoms. The idea would be to create something uniquely Solentian that people might aspire to. In the future, we would be willing to look into a nobility-land-based system with the CPS however and I shall endeavour to form a Tory Commission and study into the matter." Sen. Martin Astor, Tory Leader. |
| Date | 20:27:12, May 30, 2010 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | "Perhaps a tiered system of knighthoods, for example the Order of George Bailen could be the highest title available to Solentian citizens, with the Order of Harold Belisarius being the next tier down, etc., with the names of great Solentians being honored in this way?" CPS Chairwoman Andrea Bryant |
| Date | 21:56:39, May 30, 2010 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | A peerage system is perhaps the worst of ideas considered by this legislature on sadly more than a few occasions. Let me be clear: the law already rewards those who do well with systems established by the Senate without elevating the pampered elite to a level of aristocracy peerage is designed to create. It is the ignorance of this government if it chooses to neglect the venues we have already created in order to reward those who deserve recognition. The Solentian Heroes Commemoration Act (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=193595) and the Solentian Citizenship Identification Act (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=194925) both fulfill these. We support discussing other ways to accomplish this, but not through elitism. Senator Morton Kellian |
| Date | 23:40:37, May 30, 2010 CET | From | Radical Nationalists | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | We support a Merit based system of lordships. |
| Date | 23:55:35, May 30, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | "And how many people exactly have bennefited from the FIP's corrupt system? I see only two members of the Official Honoured Solentian Heroes List. Hardly of any bennefit to the average citizen. These awards were designeds by a corrupt class and reserved only for the political elite. That is not what we want to achieve here. The FIP are in complete denial if they think that giving two ctiizens an award is enough. Clearly the system doesn't work." Sen. Martin Astor, Tory Leader. |
| Date | 05:37:04, May 31, 2010 CET | From | Utilitarian Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | The Utilitarian Party will not support grating any sort of hereditary nobility tittles. If the peerage weren't hereditary, how could you decide who has served well a peace of land? Solentia is far more than its territory; Solentia is its people. Men in the community naturally honour and admire those who deserve praise; no further award is in our vies necessary. While we oppose any peerage system, we propose a deep analysis and a correction of the flaws of the current orders. With this findings in mind, we suggest to revamp the awards from any elements which would suggest a political connection between those honoured and those voting. Why should the Senators decide who deserves praise? Don't normal citizens already decide that by themselves? The change of the medals name could eventually be discussed. |
| Date | 12:36:53, May 31, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | "The UPS proves as narrowminded as they are unable to listen. This is not about medals and had they been paying attention, they would know that nobody is suggesting a system with any remote linkage to a piece of land. Had they proven ever remotely able to listen, they would also know that we have explicitly stated that we are unwilling to support hereditory titles at this time. As far as we can see, the FIP and UPS are hypocrtical for supporting medals and not titles. Both are material. The FIP can claim that titles somehow magically create inequality and a "pampered elite" but the fact stands that calling someone a knight or a Lord is no different to an "Honoured Solentian Hero". The key difference is that these knighthoods would be placed on the average citizen for above-average contribution to Society and to more than two people. The FIP would have us believe that their system is somehow more fair, but in reality, it is a reservation for a political elite. Why, they even refer to him as "Father" George Bailen when they themselves outlawed titles years ago. Such hypocracy." Sen. Martin Astor, Tory Leader. |
| Date | 19:11:15, May 31, 2010 CET | From | Utilitarian Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | We stated as an extra fact that we would not be supporting a hereditary peerage system; does inharitancy mean only land? No, it doesn't. You can also inherit only a tittle. That is what we only wanted to express, and not that we weren't paying attention to the debate; therefore, we continued our declaration stating "If the peerage weren't hereditary..." So could the CMP explain which was our position on the land? We were trying to show how ridiculous it is to confer a tittle of any sort just because some "served well" a piece of land. [OCC: Sorry about the previous misspelling.] The basis of nationalism is being proud of the piece of land your mother gave birth to. Therefore, we do not support tittles except those directly granted by the society. What we did proposed was revamping the current two orders of merit. We will not oppose maintaining this two awards if the other parties agree to; even if we dislike the idea. However, if these two awards remain in place, we expect them to be deprived of any political links and to maintain them as a recognition the society (and not the Senate) bestows upon its remarkable individuals |
| Date | 20:05:07, May 31, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | "We have already made it perfectly clear to the Gentleman and to the Senate that we do not propose a hereditary peerage system. Why the UPS are obsessed with the notion, we're not sure. At no point have we mentioned serving a piece of land, however we have made it emphatically clear that we promote the granting of titles based on service and contribution to society, politics, history, the arts and so on. This Senate is representative of the people and society of Solentia, if we bestow titles on hard-working contributors to the national-life, then we do so with the mandate granted to us by society itself. Unless the UPS no longer believe they have democratic mandate to participate in the decision making process? In which case, your lack of confidence in your own judgement is dangerous and you might as well give up now. The current system of medals (which is more of a 400 year old novelty that an actual system) is dated and obsolete. It doesn't work. The only people who bennefit are the two people on that list. That frankly, is a disgrace. The Tories are here to reform the system into a fully-operational peerage system of titles that will be used and will actually work and bennefit the average citizen. The UPS want to remove the Senate's right to even grant the damn things, so what exactly is the point of keeping them?" Sen. Martin Astor, Tory leader. |
| Date | 23:18:56, June 03, 2010 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | The bill we passed did not outlaw the title of "father" it outlawed elitist nonsense reminiscent of peasants shoveling heaping piles of dung for their "Lord and Lady" masters. We would not necessarily support the outlaw of "father" or "sister", that is something worth review even if this party supported it in times prior. Use the system, don't ignore it. Until then, it appears you only use a system when you are the architect of it and can manipulate things to your liking most. Don't cut off your own nose to spite your face, Senator. Senator Morton Kellian |
| Date | 03:47:25, June 04, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | "The Tories suggest reforming the system, we only propose scrapping the current honours award legislation and replacing it. That is reform. It is pointless constantly amending something that can simply be removed and started afresh with much less issue." Sen. Martin Astor, Tory Leader. |
| Date | 20:37:34, June 12, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | OOC: Sent to vote to preserve. |
| Date | 00:15:43, June 13, 2010 CET | From | Utilitarian Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | You are aware that granting titles is illegal since a ban is still in place. |
| Date | 00:49:24, June 13, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | OOC: This is not an IC Act. This will not create titles. This is a debate that has been sent to vote to preserve what has been said for RP purposes. |
| Date | 01:09:30, June 13, 2010 CET | From | Utilitarian Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | OOC: I am sorry, but I was not aware of that practice. One that bills are sent to vote, are they all saved regardless of the outcome? |
| Date | 15:00:45, June 13, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Peerage Debate |
| Message | OOC: If you look in a party's main page, you can view all past legislation that it has presented. If you delete it, all the information is lost. I'm simply making sure that this debate is kept SOMEWHERE wihout it clogging up the main debate phase. :) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 33 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 64 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "OOC", "IC" and "IG" are commonly-used acronyms in Particracy. "OOC" refers to comments, discussions and actions which are out-of-character, meaning they are done player-to-player rather than party-to-party. "IC" refers to in-character interactions (ie. party-to-party). Similarly, "IG" means in-game, although this term may also simply refer to what happens in the actual game interface, as opposed to on the forum or elsewhere. "RP" just means "role-play". |
| Random quote: "[In the West] unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without any need for an official ban." - George Orwell |