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 August 2166
Details
Submitted by[?]: Freedom 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: October 2167
Description[?]:
| Proposing a Cabinet. Changes asked for made, swapped finance for Head of Government with RFP. Education and Culture to RFP, Trade & Industry to LIP Our opinion is that the GRP are going to go inactive, thus they have been excluded, if they do not however, then we would welcome them into the cabinet. |
Proposals
Article 1
The responsibilites of Head of Government will be conducted by the 
Freedom Party
Article 2
The responsibilites of Science and Technology will be conducted by the Libertarian Alcoholic Party II
Article 3
The responsibilites of Food and Agriculture will be conducted by the Libertarian Alcoholic Party II
Article 4
The responsibilites of Environment and Tourism will be conducted by the Radical Freedom Party
Article 5
The responsibilites of Trade and Industry will be conducted by the Liberal Imperialist Party
Article 6
The responsibilites of Foreign Affairs will be conducted by the Libertarian Alcoholic Party II
Article 7
The responsibilites of Internal Affairs will be conducted by the Liberal Imperialist Party
Article 8
The responsibilites of Finance will be conducted by the Radical Freedom Party
Article 9
The responsibilites of Defence will be conducted by the Liberal Imperialist Party
Article 10
The responsibilites of Justice will be conducted by the Freedom Party
Article 11
The responsibilites of Infrastructure and Transport will be conducted by the Radical Freedom Party
Article 12
The responsibilites of Health and Social Services will be conducted by the Freedom Party
Article 13
The responsibilites of Education and Culture will be conducted by the Radical Freedom Party
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:18:05, January 05, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | If there's any party that should get HoG, it should be the Conservatives! |
| Date | 12:56:19, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | This is acceptable. |
| Date | 13:17:54, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | Uhuh. We will not be cheated out of HoG just because of the Liberal Imperialist Party. No way. |
| Date | 14:02:37, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | You wanted Finance, i swapped my finance for your HoG. HoG does nothing anyway really. I also gave you education, you demanded two ministries, i gave you them, stop being so demanding |
| Date | 15:02:45, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | Glad to see you got all the bugs out before you proposed this Cabinet |
| Date | 15:46:48, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | The fact is not so much the HoG position, but the fact that this position is taken away from us on account of the LIP idea that we are not to be trusted. Does the Freedom Party share the view that the RFP is not to be trusted? Because switching us away from the HoG position despite us being the largest party would seem to indicate this. We would not even have insisted on this point if the LIP had made a political issue out of us having no right to HoG because caving in to this demand implicitly means that you agree that the RFP is not really a part of this coalition. |
| Date | 16:04:40, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | We dont think you arent really part of the coalition - if we thought that we would vote against this as well - but we dont think that you are deserving of the top spot as you are the ONLY member of the coalition that has tried to defect to a different coalition and essentially blackmail the other members to try to get them to endorse you as Head of State. We do not want the HoG position ourselves - it is not a selfish act, but an act of principle. Please see that this decision is fair noting your past behaviour and we implore you not to throw an angry spanner in the works of the coalition over what is essentially an irrelevent position. |
| Date | 19:05:00, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | The "angry spanner" is thrown by you. This is a vote of trust. If you do not trust the RFP you should not govern with them. But then again, we should have known that the LIP would be plotting this way for a return to conservative government and this is exactly the way to do it. We are willing to take responsibility, for the Rutanian people, but we will NOT throw away our principles when our prospective coalition partners seek to humiliate us. |
| Date | 20:21:55, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | Oh I trust you enough to be in coalition with you - if I didnt then I wouldnt vote in favour of it, would I? - I just dont think that you should be the Head of Government. Why is this so difficult to understand? I also see little sense in you calling us conservatives, as we share many common values with you (ie. economic and social liberalism - the complete opposite of Conservatism), only we didnt try to start a coalition with authoritarian regulators. Sadly, vague and illogical assertions seems to be the sum of your reasoning when debating with the LIP. And really, if your core principle is to be Head of Government (it clearly isnt social and economic liberalism, if you are willing to go into government with the RSDP, Nationalists, Veritserum, Etc.) then perhaps you need to reassess your political priorities? |
| Date | 20:26:59, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Libertarian Alcoholic Party II | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | This cabinet is sweet and I will support it. |
| Date | 21:20:55, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | roflmao. |
| Date | 21:27:25, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | Our policy with regards to coalition-building is, and always has been, very clear and open. We will only enter a coalition under assurances from *all* prospective partner that the RFP is a full and serious coalition partner and that we will not be discriminated against in petty party-political games. This proposal is not bad as far as are positions are concerned, but we have *no* taste for being a fifth wheel in a club that is only out for our votes and not for our values. |
| Date | 21:53:50, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | The audacity of that statement is really quite astounding. We actually share almost of your values, if you look at the statistics, but you are quite happy to abandon this economically and socially liberal cabinet in favour of an authoritarian regulatory cabinet which actually shares *none* of your values whenever you think it will get you endorsements for the Head of State position as well as the Head of Government position. The fact is that you arent being treated as a fifth wheel - you actually have more seats than any other party in this cabinet (4 as opposed to everyone elses' 3), you are the most privelaged member of this cabinet and your persistant irritation at not being given the Head of Government spot on top of it all culminating in stupid, completely hypocritical and frankly incorrect statements like the one we have just heard indicate a tendancy towards party politics of the worst kind. I implore you to realise the pointlessness of your selfish stalling of the coalition and agree to finally go ahead united rather than divided or dividing. |
| Date | 10:23:01, January 06, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | I can assure the RFP that they asked for finance and said they would swap any position for it, so i gave them finance which i had, and took HoG which doesnt do anything anyway. I also gave the RFP the GRP's position as well. |
| Date | 13:57:50, January 06, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | I have just realised that this probably wont pass due to GRP's seats still counting. Once they are inactivated then we can send it to vote again and we would have a majority... or an opposition party could vote for |
| Date | 18:04:45, January 06, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | [OOC: That's true. This would pass if he had been inactived earlier, so could an opposition party vote for?] |
| Date | 01:44:41, January 07, 2006 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | This cabinet doesnt make up the numbers...... |
| Date | 14:09:29, January 07, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of August 2166 |
| Message | OOC: le sigh. Just send it to vote again then if nobody is going to do that |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 289 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 281 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 29 |
| Random fact: The grey space in the east is populated by the forum-based countries, known in-game as the former colonies or the "Third World". These countries are managed by the Third World Coordinator but players can request control of individual countries in the Third World Control Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8302 |
| Random quote: "The key to understanding the American system is to imagine that you have the power to make nearly any law you want, but your worst enemy will be the one to enforce it." - Rick Cook |