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: Clean Water Proposal
Details
Submitted by[?]: Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry'
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 2173
Description[?]:
| As water is required by all people in their daily lives, we propose that for energy conservation, time saving and the limitation of disease, water be set to a single drinkable standard so that the workforce does not lose efficiency through hours off sick from water borne illness, that industry does not lose as much money in sick pay for no work, and that the boiling and sterilisation of water within people's homes and places of work does not result in wasted time that could be spent at the forefront of our industries. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Regulation of the quality of drinking water.
Old value:: The government does not regulate the quality of drinking water.
Current: The government sets a range of standards dependant on water usage. (grey water regulation, etc.)
Proposed: The government sets a single standard to ensure all tap water is drinkable.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:49:23, January 17, 2006 CET | From |  GotNation Party | To | Debating the Clean Water Proposal |
| Message | I can go with this one |
| Date | 19:56:17, January 17, 2006 CET | From | Pontesi Fascist Coalition | To | Debating the Clean Water Proposal |
| Message | Having one standard, in this instance, would be disadvantageous. Industry would have to clean water that would not even be meant for human consumption, leading to excess costs and burdens upon our economy. If you would reduce the requirement to a variety of standards, you will have our support. |
| Date | 22:52:26, January 17, 2006 CET | From |  Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry' | To | Debating the Clean Water Proposal |
| Message | Would a variety of standards not also result in higher costs due to the absence of benefit from the economies of scale present with one single standard procedure? |
| Date | 00:57:29, January 18, 2006 CET | From | Pontesi Fascist Coalition | To | Debating the Clean Water Proposal |
| Message | You're asking companies to impose the same standard of cleanliness on all forms of water used in the home, regardless of use. Should greywater have to be treated to the same standard as drinking water? |
| Date | 01:10:38, January 19, 2006 CET | From | Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry' | To | Debating the Clean Water Proposal |
| Message | Houses only tend to have one water pipe going into them... they have internal boiler systems, but those are not controlled by the state nor are they the state's concern. For each standard you have, you effectively have a separate water system on a national level, and thus the cost of the maintenance of that system, the pipes, the contracting to lay the new pipes in, the disruption of road digging to lay them... etc. Surely if the tap is leaking, you simply change the washer instead of everything including the kitchen sink? (On a slight aside and pedantic not, this is also just about changing the "Regulation of the quality of drinking water.". Emphasis, drinking. ; ) ) |
| Date | 04:06:44, January 19, 2006 CET | From | Pontesi Fascist Coalition | To | Debating the Clean Water Proposal |
| Message | If individuals are extremely concerned with the quality of their water, they can buy treatment devices that can distill water to a very pure level. However, the cost of maintaining and enforcing a single cleanliness standard would be prohibitive. |
| Date | 13:36:46, January 19, 2006 CET | From | Pnték Znkak Prta 'Bastardry' | To | Debating the Clean Water Proposal |
| Message | We disagree with the cost being prohibitive in light of the risk diseases cause to losing manhours in our workforce, and the cost of that. The sooner we enforce a single water standard, of course we take an acceptable cost in doing so, but it's a one off with minor maintenance costs, which are much smaller than the cost of lost productivity, medical supplies to treat those who contract a disease, and the possibilities of plagues and epidemics spreading through the water system such as those in Victorian London, ultimately causing a sharp decline in the workforce. Surely that is the highest cost on the agenda, or would you rather you took the risk of contracting dysentry, cholera, and other parasitic and enterobacteriaceae-related diseases, some of which are fatal or would at least put you out of work for possibly months, every time you went to take a glass of water, every time you went to wash a wound, every time you cooled down your hand after you burn it accidentally, every time you run a bath, every time you take a shower, every time you cooked (and boiling isn't a be all and end all sterilisation method due to sporulating pathogens), every time you used the Pontesian water supply? If the cost were prohibitive, how come developed society has taken it underfoot so well in other countries? If the cost were prohibitive, how come in African aid projects it's one of the first priorities when they're on a restrictive budget? If the cost were prohibitive, we would be living in a very poor infrastructure and we can safely say that the cost is not a problem, nor a waste, nor is it unjustified. This is managable and with so many benefits from the sterilisation and the convenience, there is no good reason why it shouldn't implemented. |
| Date | 17:05:53, January 19, 2006 CET | From | Pontesi Fascist Coalition | To | Debating the Clean Water Proposal |
| Message | After some reconsideration, we will agree to support your proposal. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 149 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 129 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 21 |
| Random fact: The influence a bill has on elections decreases over time, until it eventually is no longer relevant. This can explain shifts in your party's position to the electorate and your visibility. |
| Random quote: "I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word." - Martin Luther King, Jr. |