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: Ultrackian Reform Bill 23
Details
Submitted by[?]: Ultrackian Communist Party
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: January 4425
Description[?]:
| This bill will not nationalise any existing companies, it will creat a new state owned one |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: Defence industries are privately owned but subsidised by the state.
Current: Defence industries are privately owned but subsidised by the state.
Proposed: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:47:55, July 15, 2018 CET | From | New Liberal Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Ultrackian Reform Bill 23 |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We believe a national defence company could lower our overall expenditures on military ordinance as it could demand lower prices than other companies. In turn, companies should lower their prices to compete - making our overall expenditures decline. We will support this bill. Jack Hill MP for Wrightstown Centre |
| Date | 03:21:16, July 15, 2018 CET | From |  Scientian Enclave | To | Debating the Ultrackian Reform Bill 23 |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, This bill is vague. Does it propose we nationalize a private company or create a state-owned enterprise to compete with the private sector? If it is the latter, we are open to that. If however the bill remains vague or suggests nationalizing private defence companies, we will see no reason to vote in support of it. Note that the Hutorian government already has considerable influence over defence industries. Norbert Lowell Ambassador of the Scientian Enclave |
| Date | 17:24:16, July 15, 2018 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Ultrackian Reform Bill 23 |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, The fact is that nationalized companies do not have to be financially competitive. There is no risk nor is there an incentive for a nationalized company to be competitive as they receive funding from the state. This would only serve to harm our robust defense industry and cause us to spend more on defense than we already do. The Federalist will vote no. Jeffery Rawson Federalist Parliamentary Leader |
| Date | 23:27:37, July 15, 2018 CET | From | New Liberal Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Ultrackian Reform Bill 23 |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Given the Scientian Enclave's concerns, I recommend that the originator of this bill clarify that it will create a state-owned enterprise, not nationalise a currently private company. We will support this bill should that be the case. I also believe my honourable friend, the leader of the Federalist Party in Parliament, too quickly discounts the idea of a government-owned defense corporation. A "public option" defense corporation is not guaranteed to win every contract. Private companies should be given the chance to compete with the public option on prices. Should they offer higher quality goods at lower prices, the Minister of Defense would surely recommend purchasing such goods from the private sector, would he not? Right now, there is no incentive for defense corporations not to specialise and even collude - all of which could lead to monopolies on military tech. The current monopsony undoubtedly will lead to collusion and cartel-like behavior from defence contractors. Because there is only one buyer - the ministry of defence - companies are incentivized not to compete, but to specialize to the point of mini-monopolies! One manufactures only warships, another airplanes and so on and so forth. These mini-monopolies only breed higher prices for the Hutorian taxpayer. Creating a government defense contractor puts a check on the dangers of the monopsony this government. It gives the Minister of Defence a tool by which he or she can keep prices low and encourage competition - to the benefit of all Hutori citizens. Jack Hill MP for Wrightstown Centre |
| Date | 04:07:40, July 16, 2018 CET | From |  Liberal Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Ultrackian Reform Bill 23 |
| Message | Mr. Speaker On this file I must agree with the Honourable Member for Wrightstown Centre. Currently, the situation with defence is in fact a de-facto mini-monopoly in regards to the Navy and Air Force in which Prosperity Ironworks, Adelia Naval Inc, Jetstream Aerospace and Horizon Technology do in fact have de-facto duopoloies in their respective fields. If such a circumstance were to be created to what the Scientians suggest, and respecting the private sector as is, we would support such an arrangement. As the bill is currently written we will not support it. Clark Drumf Minister of Trade & Industry |
| Date | 04:08:16, July 16, 2018 CET | From | Liberal Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Ultrackian Reform Bill 23 |
| Message | OOC: The issue is lack of details. If you work with me Ultrackia I can help you craft the legislation |
| Date | 08:00:44, July 16, 2018 CET | From | New Liberal Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Ultrackian Reform Bill 23 |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We will vote for this bill out of principle, but believe it will fail due to the stated positions of the Scientians and Progressive Royalists. Therefore, we will be introducing the New Liberal version of the same bill, which will specify that the government-run defense company is to be created anew, rather than nationalizing an existing company. Those who wish to view that bill may see its text here: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=575947&vote=yes Jack Hill MP for Wrightstown Centre |
| Date | 08:05:08, July 16, 2018 CET | From | New Liberal Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Ultrackian Reform Bill 23 |
| Message | OOC: Just realized that link makes you vote "Yes" to the bill. Just FYI to everyone. Should have posted the link w/o the "&vote=yes" |
| Date | 11:46:09, July 16, 2018 CET | From | Scientian Enclave | To | Debating the Ultrackian Reform Bill 23 |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, To prevent two corporations from being created, we will vote against this bill, but vote in approval of NLP's bill. Norbert Lowell Ambassador of the Scientian Enclave |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 136 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 209 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 60 |
| Random fact: "OOC", "IC" and "IG" are commonly-used acronyms in Particracy. "OOC" refers to comments, discussions and actions which are out-of-character, meaning they are done player-to-player rather than party-to-party. "IC" refers to in-character interactions (ie. party-to-party). Similarly, "IG" means in-game, although this term may also simply refer to what happens in the actual game interface, as opposed to on the forum or elsewhere. "RP" just means "role-play". |
| Random quote: "Those who are responsible for the national security must be the sole judges of what the national security requires. It would be obviously undesirable that such matters should be made the subject of evidence in a court of law or otherwise discussed in public." - Unattributed member of the the House of Lords on the removal of trade union rights |