Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: June 5461
Next month in: 02:23:57
Server time: 13:36:02, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): Tayes3 | 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: Agricultural Reforms Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Solentian Socialist Party

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: December 2156

Description[?]:

Article 1

At the moment, the government subsidises the operations of farming families on low-incomes. This encourages farmers to ignore the demands of consumers, in the knowledge the public will bail them out, should their business decisions prove incompetent. We believe our policy should be changed to: "Strategic crops are produced on State owned farms. All other produce is left to the Private sector."

Like the Trade and Industry Acts and the International Fair Trade Act, we believe the approval of this bill would ensure the Solentian people are not short-changed as a result of market fluctuations. Certain crops are too important to the health and well-being of the public to be left to the private sector, while many other agricultural products are too specialised for central control to prove effective. The SSP believes that a balance is needed: publicly owned farms should be built to ensure that vital crops are provided at reasonable prices, while the market should be given the responsibility for ensuring competitive prices and providing specialist products.

Article 2

At the current time, farm size is totally unregulated. The SSP believes we should change this, so that "Small farms are encouraged to merge together into larger ones." Note that the merging of smaller farms would not be compulsory - the government would simply encourage them to do so, in order to increase efficiency. In an age of mechanisation, the limited resources we have available for the agricultural sector will be put to better use by funding the development of larger farms. Those farms that decide to merge would therefore have greater finances at their disposal, allowing them to diversify their operations and provide better goods and a generally more efficient service.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date18:08:47, December 12, 2005 CET
From Solentian Socialist Party
ToDebating the Agricultural Reforms Act
MessageWe realise that people may have different views on the two reforms this bill proposes to make, but we thought it would be best to discuss both issues in one place, considering they both concern our overall agricultural programme.

Date05:37:06, December 13, 2005 CET
From United Centrists
ToDebating the Agricultural Reforms Act
MessageWe believe that we could support this proposal, though would also like to hear the opinions of the other parties.

Date04:42:56, December 14, 2005 CET
From Solentian Imperialist Party
ToDebating the Agricultural Reforms Act
MessageThis sounds a bit too much like to historically disastrous Chinese Farm Commune program of the 1950s, especially the second proposal. For that, we are against this resolution.

Date04:46:48, December 14, 2005 CET
From Solentian Socialist Party
ToDebating the Agricultural Reforms Act
MessageAnyone?

Date04:49:45, December 14, 2005 CET
From Solentian Socialist Party
ToDebating the Agricultural Reforms Act
MessageWhoops, we missed the SIP response.

Our response: we feel it is a massive exaggeration to liken moderate state intervention in the agricutlural sector, to protect jobs and the provision of vital crops, to the collectivisation pursued by the Chinese Maoists! We have to say, we feel insulted by the insinuation that it was intended as such. There is no compulsion in our proposal to encourage larger farms - which are entirely different to the communes of the PRC, not infringing on private property in the least - and the market would remain the underlying basis for this sector of the economy. We feel you are being irrational.

Date02:39:28, December 15, 2005 CET
From Solentian Socialist Party
ToDebating the Agricultural Reforms Act
MessageWell? Any other thoughts?

Date05:10:33, December 15, 2005 CET
From Solentian Socialist Party
ToDebating the Agricultural Reforms Act
MessageRight, we'll move to a vote then.

Date05:25:48, December 15, 2005 CET
From Union of Real Politics (URP)
ToDebating the Agricultural Reforms Act
MessageHoooray, vivat communism

Date05:37:14, December 15, 2005 CET
From Solentian Socialist Party
ToDebating the Agricultural Reforms Act
MessageDon't be so childish.

If you wish to debate, we will be happy to explain why the continued protection of private property, and minor state intervention to stabilise a market economy has nothing to do with communism - although it should be ******* obvious already.

Date05:50:55, December 15, 2005 CET
From Union of Real Politics (URP)
ToDebating the Agricultural Reforms Act
MessageArticle 2. Sometime it organize such fun already, it was satisfied nobody in my country.

Date05:52:16, December 15, 2005 CET
From Solentian Socialist Party
ToDebating the Agricultural Reforms Act
MessageAh, I see, so you're not actually going to debate - just make vague warnings and silly remarks about communism.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 525

no
  

Total Seats: 0

abstain
   

Total Seats: 175


Random fact: Players must never be asked for their Particracy password. This includes Moderation; a genuine Moderator will never ask for your password.

Random quote: "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution." - Emma Goldman

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 72