Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: April 5472
Next month in: 03:56:11
Server time: 04:03:48, April 20, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): albaniansunited | saintstiiizy | 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: TTP Platform: Economics

Details

Submitted by[?]: United Labour Party of Telamon

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: July 2170

Description[?]:

---

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date00:17:19, January 11, 2006 CET
FromConservative Party of Telamon
ToDebating the TTP Platform: Economics
Message1) No, the law is fine. Kids can play with small fireworks, and leave the dangerous ones to the professionals.

2) No, It creates competition for better service and lower rates.

3) So a teacher who is happy with their own pay & conditions, may strike to help out say, piano movers? Does that make sense to you? Why should we allow one area to close for no reason. Care to explain to the students, why their well paid teacher is not in class? Do you want to?

Date09:30:53, January 11, 2006 CET
FromUnited Liberal Alliance
ToDebating the TTP Platform: Economics
Message1. no - why local government? what is wrong with the current law anyway?
2. no - phone services are not something that i think need subsidising or regulating
3. no - general strikes are not necessary to protect workers interests, why should a union strike for no reasons except in 'sympathy' of a union that has no relation or bearing on the interests of its members?

Date10:44:51, January 11, 2006 CET
FromTelamon Social Democratic Party
ToDebating the TTP Platform: Economics
Message1 no
2 ok
3 ok (The state should not pose undue limitations to the workers' possibilities to protect their interests. Banning sympathy strikes leaves the most vulnerable groups unprotected as they have no means to adequately protect themselves and would require help from more influential groups. And though they are called sympathy strikes, they usually do not arise from inconsiderate good will, but rather from the sympathising unions seeing that going on a sympathy strike in some way promotes their own goals and protects their own interests [no union would go on a sympathy strike that would adversely affect its members].)

Date01:23:20, January 12, 2006 CET
FromLiberal Party of Telamon
ToDebating the TTP Platform: Economics
Messagei say no due to the first 1

Date05:40:32, January 12, 2006 CET
From Federation Under Crazy Killers -- United
ToDebating the TTP Platform: Economics
Message1. yes
2. no
3. no

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 80

no
        

Total Seats: 275

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: After 3 days (72 hours) your account will be inactivated by Moderation. If you want to be reactivated you can request reactivation located here: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4360

    Random quote: "We pursue no other aim than freedom from oppression, liberty from lies, salvation from irrationality!" - Julius Callus, former Davostani politician

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 76