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: Industry Self Regulation Bill. -2171-
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
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: February 2172
Description[?]:
| Due to the fact that industry is capable of enforcing their health and safety regulations on their own. Also due to existing union safety regulations that are in place the need for added government regulation in this area is not needed. This will eliminate the dual regulatory measures of the government and the existing union regulation and enforcement of laws. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Health and safety legislation for industry.
Old value:: The government introduces and actively regulates health and safety legislation in all areas of industry.
Current: The government introduces and actively regulates health and safety legislation in all areas of industry.
Proposed: The government recommends health and safety legislation, but they are not actively enforced on industry.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:31:36, January 14, 2006 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Industry Self Regulation Bill. -2171- |
| Message | One regulatory body is enough for industry, we don't need two seperate orgainsations dictating safety laws. |
| Date | 20:14:12, January 14, 2006 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Industry Self Regulation Bill. -2171- |
| Message | What duel regulatory organisations, there is only one. Currently the Government tells industry what safety regulations are required to operate in certain industries, these are then regulated and checked routinely by Government. Any company breaking these regulations are either forced to comply or closed. If the unions wish to implement further regulations and try to force them on industry it is their concern, but they are not forced to do so. What the change in the law actually does is make the Government set up a toothless organisation that says to industry "this is what should be done to make your workers safe". Industry can then turn around, do nothing, and the Government has no way of stopping them. The safety of workers could be put at risk with this proposal, and we question the L-PU's position on public safety. |
| Date | 21:10:27, January 14, 2006 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Industry Self Regulation Bill. -2171- |
| Message | We agree with the WSS. At present only the government is setting the standards. Trade unions may push for futher measures (either at company or governmental level) but they have no power to change of their own. |
| Date | 01:59:12, January 15, 2006 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Industry Self Regulation Bill. -2171- |
| Message | The idea that the more regulation the better everything will be is a fairyland with unicorns flying next to gumdrop houses that line chocolate and candycane covered streets.. I don\'t but that idea, and it questioning my posistion on public safety is besides the fact. It is a cheap shot that has no basis, and coming from a party who fears public protest so much that they (WSS!P) want\'s the police to have powers to disperse this protest without any proof that a threat exist ( and I must question the WSS!P posistion on freedom of speech and his blatant disregard for the safety of the protesters). Also a party who advocates a curfew that again violates basic democratic rights (I again must question your posistion on democracy, and public safety and your anti-freedom of speech beliefs)) and put\'s innocent lives at risk. So please refrain from future insults towards parties who disagree with your own economic beliefs -meaning capitalist parties who do actually have beliefs and who despite the tired socialist jargon, really due believe that we can help society and who have a realistic plan for the poor to better themselves rather than enjoy the poor\'s dependence on government and who in turn can control the very same people that they proclaim they love so dearly....\r\n\r\nWe have put up with a lot of shit from the restrictive, do as I say, sociofacsist parties such as yourself for a long time\r\nand have been restrained in our response. But I ask you to stop minimizing my own beliefs with your hollier than thou patronizing attitude and stop questioning my integrity with unsubstantiated remarks that are made by yourself and other parties, as it only proves that you are the one\'s who are full of shit. \r\n\r\n(The new and more militant L-PU who will from now on take a more militant posistion against all socialist scum who only care or say they care about the workers, but who actually restrict all their individual rights for personal well being in their social and economic aspects of life. All socialist are evil must be stopped. Capitalist of the world unite!) |
| Date | 10:46:09, January 15, 2006 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Industry Self Regulation Bill. -2171- |
| Message | He only gave an argument against what you said and questioned your views based on his argument... There's no need for such a rant. "please refrain from future insults towards parties who disagree with your own economic beliefs" - From the same text: "he restrictive, do as I say, sociofacsist parties", "All socialist are evil must be stopped.", "it only proves that you are the one\'s [sic] who are full of shit". Just because some people believe that some regulation is needed it doesn't mean that they "are full of shit". Please try to be a bit more restrained and tolerant of others views. I hope this sort of post won't happen again. |
| Date | 18:54:43, January 15, 2006 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Industry Self Regulation Bill. -2171- |
| Message | O...K... We would just like to point out some inaccuracies in the response from the L-PU, if the other members of this Chamber have no complaints. "coming from a party who fears public protest so much that they (WSS!P) want\'s the police to have powers to disperse this protest without any proof that a threat exist" - The law we introduced was "The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety." Within this, there was the requirement that; "This law does not empower the Police to disband any groups without provocation, or without probable cause, nor does it allow for intervention within an organised assembly of persons, be the gathering of a political or social nature, without afforementioned cause." So, to clarify, the Police must have some cause for concern before any groups may be dispersed, so there must be some proof presented to the Police that there is a threat, no? "Also a party who advocates a curfew that again violates basic democratic rights...and put\'s innocent lives at risk." - The last time any curfew policies were attempted to be passed was during a time of war where such curfews would be introduced to protect public safety. Being outside in a bombing campaign, or a fire-fight, wouldn't exactly be the safest place to be, would it? So, with that idea in mind your statement that "I must question the WSS!P posistion on freedom of speech and his blatant disregard for the safety of the protesters" would be incorrect as all the previous laws would be introduced to protect and maintain public safety. We question the L-PU's position on public safety and, in turn, recieve a tirade against the very nature of the WSS!P which, interestingly enough, completely ignores the times that the L-PU and the WSS!P have stood together against the complete nationalisation of industries, against the introduction of Government paid for public transportation, where both paties have stood together with others, on both the left and the right, to reduce public and industrial taxation. We may well stand for differing positions on the social and economic scales, but please don't let yourself be fooled into the position that your views would be any more economically or socially succesful then our own. We would also request that the L-PU representatives of this Chamber hold their tongues and think before using such vile rhetoric as "sociofacsist parties such as yourself" and "you are the one\'s who are full of shit." it does nothing to aid your arguments. |
| Date | 07:48:31, January 16, 2006 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Industry Self Regulation Bill. -2171- |
| Message | So... let's pretend I never posted my drunken response to WWS!P and let it fade into history as an act of "poor judgment".... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 143 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 257 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When your party holds the foreign affairs department, you can create new treaties. However, before writing anything new, it is a good idea to search for existing treaties which already accomplish what you desire. |
| Random quote: "Poetry is about the grief; politics is about the grievance." - Robert Frost |