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: Supreme Presidential Cabinet 3191 - 3192
Details
Submitted by[?]: Federal Independent Party
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 3192
Description[?]:
| Supreme President Mario LaHood's cabinet selection for the remainder of his 3191 - 3192 term. |
Proposals
Article 1
As per the Constitution, the President chairs the cabinet.
Article 2
The responsibilites of Science and Technology will be conducted by the 
United National Front
Article 3
The responsibilites of Food and Agriculture will be conducted by the United Liberal Caucus
Article 4
The responsibilites of Environment and Tourism will be conducted by the Democratic Catholic Party
Article 5
The responsibilites of Trade and Industry will be conducted by the United Liberal Caucus
Article 6
The responsibilites of Foreign Affairs will be conducted by the Democratic Catholic Party
Article 7
The responsibilites of Internal Affairs will be conducted by the Labour Party
Article 8
The responsibilites of Finance will be conducted by the Federal Independent Party
Article 9
The responsibilites of Defence will be conducted by the Labour Party
Article 10
The responsibilites of Justice will be conducted by the Federal Independent Party
Article 11
The responsibilites of Infrastructure and Transport will be conducted by the Democratic Catholic Party
Article 12
The responsibilites of Health and Social Services will be conducted by the United National Front
Article 13
The responsibilites of Education and Culture will be conducted by the Federal Independent Party
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:36:38, October 03, 2011 CET | From | Federal Republic Progressionist Party | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Cabinet 3191 - 3192 |
| Message | Although I would prefer to have all parties in the cabinet, it's best to have a filled one than a half empty one. |
| Date | 12:51:33, October 03, 2011 CET | From | United Liberal Caucus | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Cabinet 3191 - 3192 |
| Message | The PSCP is right. This maybe the only cabinet certain parties will approve of, even if it does disclude the Moderate Liberals for which we are sorry |
| Date | 15:35:42, October 03, 2011 CET | From | Democratic Catholic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Cabinet 3191 - 3192 |
| Message | "We recognize the political honesty of PSCP. Thanks for your support" Kate House Secretary of the SPP |
| Date | 16:13:05, October 03, 2011 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Cabinet 3191 - 3192 |
| Message | My fellow senators, I would be doing our country a disservice if I did not bring this up... It's incredibly naive to keep thinking we can or should include all parties in a cabinet. Extremists like the SPP do not belong in the cabinet. The FIP has introduced an excellent cabinet that: 1) Commands a majority 2) Includes a diverse range of rational opinion 3) Excludes the extremist SPP It's just not plausible to have all parties represented. And that would basically destroy the point of elections. If every party is going to have that power in government, it destroys any incentive for parties to connect with voters and pass good pubic policy. The competitive edge is what drives success, and that needs to be preserved. |
| Date | 16:14:24, October 03, 2011 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Cabinet 3191 - 3192 |
| Message | OOC: Wow, please disregard that post. I'm not sure exactly what I was thinking, considering that the SPP IS in the cabinet. My bad guys, haha. |
| Date | 16:23:29, October 03, 2011 CET | From | Democratic Catholic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Cabinet 3191 - 3192 |
| Message | --- Solentian Times Update --- The Secretary of the SPP, Kate House, reacted immediately to the words of Capestany in front of the reporters: "The Secretary Capestany has less than a month to withdraw its offenses or the "People's Alliance" will take actions against them. His sentences are stupid, inappropriate and false. Or we hear his apology, or withdraw support for the Cabinet. We could not work with them". |
| Date | 22:35:07, October 03, 2011 CET | From | Chann National Party (CNP) | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Cabinet 3191 - 3192 |
| Message | We don't care either way if we get a spot in the cabinet, the nation needs a cabinet. |
| Date | 03:36:05, October 04, 2011 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Cabinet 3191 - 3192 |
| Message | ***Labour Press Release*** The comments made earlier by Labour press secretary were not meant to be official, were obviously erroneous in context and false in general. We apologize to the SPP, and Mr. Capestany has been fired from his post as press secretary. His comments were everything the SPP said and worse. This is a foolish error we have made and do not wish to offend the SPP. We can disagree but we should be civil. I apologize again, and ask the SPP to please rejoin the cabinet coalition and work to reconcile. -Labour Party Leadership Council |
| Date | 04:38:56, October 04, 2011 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Supreme Presidential Cabinet 3191 - 3192 |
| Message | Labor has apologized, we ask that the SPP put the interest of the Federal Republic ahead of personal quarrels involving name calling. This is Solentia's first real shot at a successful cabinet in a decade. FIP Senate Minority Leader Jack Tormé |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 399 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 26 |
| Random fact: Players consent to the reasonable and predictable consequences of the role-play they consent to. For example, players who role-play their characters as committing criminal offences should expect those characters to experience the predictable judicial consequences of that. |
| Random quote: "How we can possibly be giving £1bn a month, when we're in this sort of debt, to Bongo Bongo Land is completely beyond me." - Godfrey Bloom |