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: Revocation of the Higher education Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Adam Smith 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: May 2075
Description[?]:
| Considering that this act was passed with a minority of 160 of 450 members, and that it appears that certain parties were not able to vote for some reason, a motion is presented to reverse part of this bill to afford the oportunity to those that had expressed their opposition to this to be represented. This revocation only affects the full subsidy clause of the bill. It is proposed that this is reduced to subsidising only those that can not pay for themselves. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Higher education tuition policy.
Old value:: The government fully subsidizes tuition.
Current: The government fully subsidizes tuition.
Proposed: The government subsidizes tuition only for students from families classified as low-income or poor.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:59:57, June 26, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | We have attempted to introduce a compromise position here. Our ideal would be no subsidies whatsoever for Higher education, but we recognise that there are many in our parliament who feel that theft should be legalised to provide for all. As such we have accepted the lesser of two evils. |
| Date | 19:21:53, June 26, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | This compromise will have our support. |
| Date | 05:18:04, June 27, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | While we agree completely with the statement of the Adam Smith Party above, we are not sure that this reduction in subsidy spending is justified by its discrimination against our most productive citizens. As such our opinion is undecided upon either of the three options. |
| Date | 17:31:00, June 27, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | This may be a fair compromise position, and it's nice to see my honourable colleagues from the Adam Smith Party are less doctrinaire on university educaiton than they are on schools. Some questions, however: How will low-income families be determined? Is there an annual income cut-off, or some sort of means test being comtemplated? Is this a government commitment to fund all low-income students fully, or just to provide small scholarships? Sister Maria da Cruz CCF-Greens education critic |
| Date | 18:11:31, June 27, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | What of the students of lower middle class or middle class families? The cost of higher education for one student can easily be a quarter of a comfortably middle class family. Higher education should be a right, not a priviledge, and we see this bill as a hindrance to that right. |
| Date | 18:56:56, June 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | University education does not demand that the institution be physically close to the home. There is genuine national and international competition. In addition on schools we are proposing the equivalent of grants for low income in the form of vouchers. How conveniently that is forgotten. We would prefer private universities with a voucher system again, but this is not an option that is available to us so we selected the next best thing. State universities with those that can afford it paying. As to the questions regarding exactly who, that is unanswerable in our current state of economic ignorance. ((When the economy side is better developped then the question becomes relevant, at the moment it is 'principle' only.)) |
| Date | 18:59:04, June 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | It would be the intention of the ASP to fund pro rata for students from families with disposable income below a threshold, up to and including full grants. Yes means testing would be involved. |
| Date | 20:28:46, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | Many private universities offer grants of their own in any case. Many of the corporations the left finds so "evil" will offer scholarships for those students entering fields of study related to that particular business. Many social organizations also offer scholarships for students meeting certain criteria that aligns with that organization's goals. There are far more methods than government payment to cover tuition. Indeed, the government could even offer loans and cover the interest on them as long as the student is in school, and perhaps for some set number of years after, and that would allow many people to attend college without bankrupting the government. This bill does not hinder any right to higher education that may or may not exist. |
| Date | 21:15:02, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | The government is already bankrupt, none of its money is really its own, but instead came from and must return to the people in some form. |
| Date | 23:26:06, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | When did the government go bankrupt? Must have missed that memo. |
| Date | 01:13:45, June 29, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | In a similar vein, I could argue that religious schools and all other non-profit organizations are bankrupt, since the money comes from and must return to the people. |
| Date | 01:14:34, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | What he means is that the government has no asstes that belong to the government and not to the people. If every asset you own is in lien and you have obligations to meet above and beyond these liens then technically you are bankrupt. |
| Date | 01:32:41, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | By popular demand a further proposal has been added reflecting the opinion of the people: March 2073 Opinion Poll An opinion poll was held among the citizens of the Independent Republic of Lodamun. The subject of the opinion poll was Higher Education Institutions. When asked what their opinions were, the following choices were made: Percentage Choice 11.94% The government leaves the development and funding of vocational schools and colleges up to local governments. 26.37% The government leaves the development and funding of all higher education institutions up to local governments. 22.27% The government maintains a system of universities, vocational schools, and colleges nationwide. 10.85% The government maintains a system of universities nationwide. 28.57% The government does not maintain any forms of higher education. We have interpreted this as 54.94% of the people saying that Higher education is not a matter for central government spending. |
| Date | 07:40:05, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | Ready to Submit then? To beat the election and a possible public opinion shift... |
| Date | 16:50:21, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | We had intended to vote for on the tuition issue. Given the new proposal just added, we will probably vote against. We once again urge the ASP not to add new proposals to its bills mid-debate, if it is indeed seekign consensus. If it is seeking polarization, of course, then carry on. |
| Date | 17:20:35, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | The proposal was added in response to the express opinion of our citizens. We would question the assertion of the CCF-Greens that a proposal has been added 'once again'. We are amenable however to withdrawing the new proposal and presenting this as a seperate act. |
| Date | 19:02:31, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | We will hold this over until after the election to allow further debate. |
| Date | 15:31:09, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | We would like to hear from the CCF as to whether they will support or oppose as this now stands. |
| Date | 21:08:39, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | See their message posted on 16:50:21, June 29, 2005 CET |
| Date | 21:35:19, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | The proposal has been changed since then. I suppose we take it as support though. OK Moving to vote. |
| Date | 17:09:43, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | We are cognizant of being perhaps the swing vote on this issue, as we were not when we made our original comments in a right-wing-controlled parliament. The party council, after extensive internal debate, has decided that free education is the ideal, as an investment in the progress of our economy and our people. In the future, we may be willing to consider a proposal to reduce the amount spent on subsidizing tuition at the post-secondary level, in exchange for the restoration of fully-funded free public education. ((ooc: google Friedman and Ireland for an interesting free-market argument for free education in today's syndicated columns)) |
| Date | 21:35:04, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | Such betrayal will not be lightly forgotten CCF. When you make a comitment to an act idf it is changesdi ns uch and such a way, and the proposer accomodates your wishes, you have a moral obligation with the proposer. |
| Date | 21:38:43, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | We will not be blackmailed into having the government control curricula. That is unnacceptable. ((OOC. The issue is not realy that of funding education, we happily do that throughsecondary school. It is about keeping thr government out of the education business.)) |
| Date | 03:46:18, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Revocation of the Higher education Act |
| Message | Our commitment was tentative -- so much so that the ASP asked whether we would support or not. In the flurry of bills, we did not get to answer before it came to a vote. Apologies for that. ASP comments during the debate show that you were not certain you had our support, so the world "betrayal" seems rather strong. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 210 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 240 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: References to prominent real-life persons are not allowed. This includes references to philosophies featuring the name of a real-life person (eg. "Marxism", "Thatcherism", "Keynesianism"). |
| 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 |