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: Supply Side Energy Reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Art & Labour
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 3024
Description[?]:
| Anybody got a quid for the meter? |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on energy generation.
Old value:: All power stations are publicly owned.
Current: All power stations are publicly owned.
Proposed: Private and public power stations exist side-by-side.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on the nation's power grid.
Old value:: The national grid is fully owned by the state.
Current: The national grid is fully owned by the state.
Proposed: Each region owns and maintains its own power grid.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on nuclear power.
Old value:: The decision is left up to local governments.
Current: The government encourages nuclear power (subsidies, tax relief etc).
Proposed: The government encourages nuclear power (subsidies, tax relief etc).
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:09:02, October 30, 2010 CET | From | SCI Libertarian-Socialist Syndicate (LL) | To | Debating the Supply Side Energy Reform |
| Message | We support. However: Article 2 moves toward federalism. Article 3 moves toward unitarism. I believe your issue coherence will decline if these are included in the same bill. |
| Date | 15:19:58, October 31, 2010 CET | From | Union Socialism Alliance | To | Debating the Supply Side Energy Reform |
| Message | We can only give our support to Article 2 |
| Date | 19:24:26, October 31, 2010 CET | From | Art & Labour | To | Debating the Supply Side Energy Reform |
| Message | @SCI: I dont actually think the coherency thing works. Surely if it were at least one of the parties around right now would have dropped below "perfect" for something. Either that or its extremely hard to get coherency down, since coherency certainly hasnt driven my bills/votes and I highly doubt its any different for anyone else. |
| Date | 04:09:58, November 01, 2010 CET | From | SCI Libertarian-Socialist Syndicate (LL) | To | Debating the Supply Side Energy Reform |
| Message | "Either that or its extremely hard to get coherency down" It's for this reason.... Issue coherence only goes down when someone directly contradicts themselves by proposing a bill to go one way, and then another bill to go the exact opposite way. Like, proposing a bill to accept gay marriage, and then another to ban gays from the military. That would lower issue coherence. And I have seen someone's issue coherence lower than perfect before. |
| Date | 16:16:25, November 02, 2010 CET | From | Art & Labour | To | Debating the Supply Side Energy Reform |
| Message | Fair enough. Not really bothered about coherency much though to be honest. Long term it can always be recovered. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 280 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 470 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Don't vote yes on a cabinet coalition that doesn't give you the power that you deserve. |
| Random quote: "Prejudices subsist in people's imagination long after they have been destroyed by their experience." - Ernest Dimnet |