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 July 2140
Details
Submitted by[?]: Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists
Status[?]: defeated
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: March 2141
Description[?]:
| Proposing a Cabinet |
Proposals
Article 1
The responsibilites of Head of Government will be conducted by the Liberty and Prosperity Party
Article 2
The responsibilites of Science and Technology will be conducted by the Liberty and Prosperity Party
Article 3
The responsibilites of Food and Agriculture will be conducted by the Alianse Progresivitāte
Article 4
The responsibilites of Environment and Tourism will be conducted by the Liberty and Prosperity Party
Article 5
The responsibilites of Trade and Industry will be conducted by the Alianse Progresivitāte
Article 6
The responsibilites of Foreign Affairs will be conducted by the Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists
Article 7
The responsibilites of Internal Affairs will be conducted by the Alianse Progresivitāte
Article 8
The responsibilites of Finance will be conducted by the Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists
Article 9
The responsibilites of Defence will be conducted by the Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists
Article 10
The responsibilites of Justice will be conducted by the Liberty and Prosperity Party
Article 11
The responsibilites of Infrastructure and Transport will be conducted by the Liberty and Prosperity Party
Article 12
The responsibilites of Health and Social Services will be conducted by the Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists
Article 13
The responsibilites of Education and Culture will be conducted by the Alianse Progresivitāte
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:35:27, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | I don't really expect this to pass, but well someone has to get the ball rolling don't they? |
| Date | 08:37:04, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | Oh and I think that this combination of parties will give a good stable centrist government. |
| Date | 08:48:21, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Liberty and Prosperity Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | I started a debate on it in my proposal. I need either DUP-DNUP, or CC-CDP-DNUP with me to have a majority. I'd really go with anyone except CU... |
| Date | 08:51:53, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Alianse Progresivitāte | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | I think I can do better than this. ;-) |
| Date | 08:55:25, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Alianse Progresivitāte | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | Just to let you know; yes, I'm still sore about the whole religion thing. And while I'm tempted to go loco-opposite direction in retaliation, I'd much rather come to an overall agreement on religious liberties - something that overall protects the rights to practice in freedom. I'm not looking for a theocracy here, I'm just looking to end the whole "Let's simply abolish religion" thing. And until I have some kind of agreement that is workable, I'm really not keen on DUP having any real power. |
| Date | 08:55:36, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Movement for White Supremacy | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | Thanks for snubbin the CPD CC CU. |
| Date | 08:56:02, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | Certainly you can, but let me just figure out what the seat distribution levels should be for a LPP-DUP-DNUP coalition.... |
| Date | 08:56:21, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Movement for White Supremacy | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | HAHAHA IT FEELS GREAT TO HAVE SEATS AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THESE VOTES!!!! AHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH |
| Date | 08:57:09, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Movement for White Supremacy | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | Yea, and I agree with everything that DNUP just said... |
| Date | 08:59:35, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | On the religion thing, I don't see our brief period of 'anti-religion' as being any different from the theocratic period that preceded it. I would be happy to have a compromise, so long as there is no 'promotion' of religious ideals. IoW, allowing religion, but keeping it firmly in check. No prayers at state schools being an example, but we would be willing for regulated religious schools to exist. We need the regulation to ensure that 'religious studies' is not the only subject on the curiculum. |
| Date | 08:59:39, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Alianse Progresivitāte | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | It's not so much about the seats as it is the principle. And you know how far I'll carry a principle. ;-) |
| Date | 09:08:07, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | Right, the DNUP should probably get three seats (2.75 rounded up), the DUP five (4.5 rounded up) and the LPP also five seats (5.76 rounded down). The obvious reason for the smaller parties rounding up and the largest rounding down is that, well without the smaller parties the largest one can't actually form a government in the first instance. Now, I would be happy with 4 seats, so long as those 4 were: MoD, Foreign Office, Finance and either Education or Health. However, since I am well aware that the 'important ministries' are: Consul, FO, Finance and Defence, I am of course willing to do a certain ammount of compromising on those minsitries. I'm not really looking for Consul though, as well that really should go to LPP shouldn't it? |
| Date | 09:11:04, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | Well the 'third party' could be CC or the CPD rather than the DNUP, but I like to think that the DUP and DNUP are more 'centrist' than these two appear to be at the moment, and thus more likely to actually get on in government. So long as neither of us throw a spat over religion of course ;-) |
| Date | 09:11:55, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Alianse Progresivitāte | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | It's not so much about the seats as it is the principle. And you know how far I'll carry a principle. ;-) |
| Date | 09:14:03, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | ? |
| Date | 09:14:18, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Alianse Progresivitāte | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | sorry for the double-post. ;-) -------------- Ok, so the agreement would be: Prayer in school would be: Not allowed, except at religious schools Religious Schools would be: Regulated. (Whether it's recognized religions or all religions, that setting is a matter for further debate I suppose) Government policy concerning the existence of a state religion. Current: There is no government policy concerning a state religion. -- that one's also fine with me. The "Any religion is banned" option they just added, hell no. Remuneration of ministers of religion. Any of these options would be fine with me: * The salaries and pensions of ministers of religions shall be regulated by the law, but shall be borne by the religious communities themselves. * The remuneration of ministers of religion shall be left up to the local governments. * The State does not intervene in the remuneration of ministers of religion. For Federalism reasons, I'd rather leave it to locals to decide, personally, but I'm not going to be angry at the other two options I listed. The last option being better than the first - just stay out of it entirely, is usually the best course. The State's policy concerning religious clothing. * There are no laws regulating the wearing of religious clothing and the wearing of religious symbols. That one seems fine to leave it alone - the other four seem to infringe too much on either believers or non-believers. Taxation of religious institutions. Basically on this one, I'll accept anything except the current position. I can see valid arguments for the others. Government policy towards evangelism and religious advertising. * Religious organizations are not permitted to actively promote themselves or advertise, however envangelism is permitted by individuals. * Religions are permitted to freely promote and advertise themselves. Either of those two are fine with me. I'd much much much rather have the latter, because I don't see religion as any different than any other philosophy (which are allowed to say anything they like at any time) - people are free to change the channel. The State's intervention in the appointment of ministers of religion. * The State does not intervene in the appointment of ministers of any religion whatsoever. * The matter of the appointment of ministers of religion is left up to local governments. For federalism reasons I like the latter, but the former is fine with me too. The Government policy concerning the visitation of foreign missionaries. * The government has no policy concerning the visitation of foreign missionaries. * The government requires foreign missionaries to register with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Either of these are fine with me. I can see the security concern reasons to register. ---------------------- And yes, any third party can form a coalition with you and LPP, I recognize that fully. And I'm quite happy to be in nominal "opposition" if I must to defend my position. :-) |
| Date | 09:20:47, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Liberty and Prosperity Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | After what you did to the budget, DUP, I'm not giving you Finance. No way, no how. And I agree with the religion compromise DNUP suggested. |
| Date | 09:25:44, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Alianse Progresivitāte | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | As a side note, whatever agreement we come to on religion (if we do come to one) can be enforced with a treaty, and a gentleman's agreement not to repeal the treaty - which would keep the theocratic and the enforced athiesm options both off the table (so CU can't cause trouble), the same way slavery's kept off the table. |
| Date | 09:29:53, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | Religion wise, I think that we can work on this. Each seperate piece of legislation shall have to be debated though, and I'm certainly not going to be the one that proposes a slackening of religious restrictions. But, I shall either abstain where possible (so as not to effect my rating), or where necissary vote in favour of the compromise that is agreed upon. Its not really a 'deal breaker' for me, I am more than willing to sacrifice my 'ahtiest principles' to the altar of rationality ;-) On the finance matter. There are four big ministries, well four important ones at least anyway. As I said, these are HoG, FO, MoD and Finance. Since we are talking about a three party coalition, then each of the parties really ought to get at least one of these. Whether the largest (ie. the LPP) takes two or not is their choice really. My choice of 'the big four' ministries in order preference are: FO, Finance, MoD and I guess HoG. Since HoG is most likely to go to LPP, its not really even an issue in my mind. With regards to the budget, the only reason that I stripped out the MoD budget is because of the failure to reform the tax system back to a progressive one from the flat tax that we (the DUP) introduced in the first instance. IIRC, at the time the DNUP said that it wanted to revert to a progressive system ASAP. So I cannot understand why they voted against our taxation proposals. So, fancy proposing a new cabinet? Or if the DNUP lets us know which of the 'big four' he really wants then I can get on and propose another solution. |
| Date | 09:30:57, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | Well if I have the foreign office, I'd be willing to do that. As I said I want to work on some free trade agreements anyway. |
| Date | 09:39:47, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Alianse Progresivitāte | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | I've put the proposals into a treaty. Of course, we're currently not in compliance with the treaty, but that can be rectified. Once it's done and ratified, the only obligation would be not to repeal it - as there's just as many theocratic nasty bits as there are athiestic ones being forbidden by the treaty, a repeal would basically be a decision to dissolve the agreement. http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewtreaty.php?treatyid=128 If this is acceptable, then I'm willing to bow out entirely of the cabinet; make it a LPP/DUP/CC/DCP coalition, with DUP in the Foreign Affairs office, and either CC or DCP in finance, the other in Defense. I've got to rebrand my party a bit anyway, so missing out on this cabinet isn't going to be a huge matter, and the "big four" are the only ones I'd be willing to join a cabinet for in the first place :-) Let the CC and DCP give it a shot. |
| Date | 09:41:55, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Alianse Progresivitāte | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | Obviously, I'd want CC and DCP to agree to the compact as well, to get to the 2/3 we need to ratify this puppy, before I bounce myself out of the cabinet. :-) |
| Date | 09:44:05, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Alianse Progresivitāte | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | I keep sayind DCP, it's CPD. Must drill that through my head; I'm so used to "CPD" being bad, and "DCP" being allies. Sorry, CPD, your party acronym used to be used by the Communist Party of Dolgaria. ;-) |
| Date | 09:45:22, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Alianse Progresivitāte | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | I left the treaty in "Draft" mode for now, so any objections to it are still able to be made and modifications can be made to make sure it's acceptable to the signatories. |
| Date | 16:00:33, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | Hmm. Actually I'm not too keen about putting such a thing in treaty-form. And my willingness to compromise only extends as far as basically getting the government positions that I am looking for. |
| Date | 21:26:35, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Alianse Progresivitāte | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | Right. So we don't have a deal then, is what you're saying. In which case, game on. |
| Date | 21:37:01, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | No, I'm saying that I'm only willing to commit for the current term. Having it in treaty form does not allow for such a deal to be made in future. Therefore to allow future options to remain open, we will not vote in favour of locking this into treaty form. That is not to say that we won't agree to continue to keep the religious restrictions agreed now in future, but only so long as we maintain our position in government. Once it is locked in treaty form, then those cards are thus taken away. So we are unwilling to sacrifice future policy options merely to be in coalition with the DNUP. |
| Date | 21:52:37, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Alianse Progresivitāte | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | And I'm unwilling to make a short term deal for power and sacrifice a long-term opportunity for some stability on the issue. Which means we're doomed to perpetual swings between theocracy and athiesm. |
| Date | 22:34:54, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Dolgarian Imperial Revivalists | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | Well not really. I'm willing to compromise unless provoked, or for that matter it turns out that a large majority of other parties are in favour of athiest principles. I only pushed through the last lot because CU sneaked one through when I wasn't looking, and well you voting in favour of it as well IIRC. |
| Date | 23:19:05, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Alianse Progresivitāte | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | Because this back and forth has been going on for years. CU was changing your earlier athiest laws... and if I have to choose between the two extremes, I'll choose the theocracy. |
| Date | 19:01:14, November 15, 2005 CET | From | Movement for White Supremacy | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of July 2140 |
| Message | I dont fully agree with the treaty. An awful lot of the articles are too confining. Almost half are way too confining. As sad as it is to say, If the people elect parties that are theocratic (even though the polls prove to be highly secular) then it should be those officials' rights and obligations to promote a religious agenda. I understand that you guys are trying to even out a Athiest/Theocrazy swing back and forth, but I dont like being restricted in this way. Plus, stuff like bargaining and these legislative swings back and forth make the game fun. remember? it is just a game. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 154 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 427 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 169 |
| Random fact: Moderation reserves the discretion to declare RP laws invalid if the players supporting them are doing so in an excessively confrontational way. |
| Random quote: "To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is barbarity." - Maximilien Robespierre |