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: Cabinet Proposal of January 2079
Details
Submitted by[?]: Adam Smith Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill presents the formation of a cabinet. It requires more than half of the legislature to vote yes. Traditionally, parties in the proposal vote yes, others (the opposition) vote no. This bill will pass as soon as the required yes votes are in and all parties in the proposal have voted yes, or will be defeated if unsufficient votes are reached on the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 2079
Description[?]:
| Proposing a Cabinet |
Proposals
Article 1
As per the Constitution, the President of the Commonwealth chairs the cabinet.
Article 2
The responsibilites of Science and Technology will be conducted by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
Article 3
The responsibilites of Foreign Affairs will be conducted by the Chorus of Amyst
Article 4
The responsibilites of Internal Affairs will be conducted by the Adam Smith Party
Article 5
The responsibilites of Finance will be conducted by the Adam Smith Party
Article 6
The responsibilites of Defence will be conducted by the Chorus of Amyst
Article 7
The responsibilites of Justice will be conducted by the 
Tuesday Is Coming
Article 8
The responsibilites of Infrastructure and Transport will be conducted by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
Article 9
The responsibilites of Health and Social Services will be conducted by the Chorus of Amyst
Article 10
The responsibilites of Education and Culture will be conducted by the Tuesday Is Coming
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:15:42, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | As there is no longer a requirement for a National unity cabinet. We have proposed a more politcally motivated set up. |
| Date | 16:31:13, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | We appreciate the change. |
| Date | 16:32:31, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | We would also like to mention our appreciation at the inclusion of the CCF Greens. In the past, we have found them to be quite reasonable on most issues and a pleasure to deal with. Unfortunately this is not the case with many Lodamun parties. |
| Date | 17:33:34, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | What, no time for bargaining? ;) |
| Date | 17:54:45, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | We are already six months into the government due to technical problems. As you had not manifested concerning this whilst discussing other items we assumed there was no objection. Was our assumption wrong? |
| Date | 19:56:23, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | (( I don't have the time to do Foreign Affairs work in this game, sorry. )) The Council would respectfully decline the portfolio of Foreign Affairs, as our isolationist policies are likely more extreme than would be good for our relations with other nations - a more moderate party would be needed to begin removing said relations before the Council would be a good choice. The Council requests the portfolio of Infrastructure instead. The CCF-Greens have served admirably as Foreign Affairs in the past, and if they do not object we would propose an exchange of the two positions. |
| Date | 19:59:21, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | ((Sent a private message. However, as we're in a vote...)) We thank the President-Councillor for her offer, and the speaker for Tuesday is Coming for the kind words. However, we feel the composition of cabinet is not a fair reflection of the voters' intentions: after an election in which there has been a slight shift to the left, it does not seem appropriate for cabinet to shift sharply to the right. The CCF-Greens could only consider the offer of seats in this cabinet if the head of government were to assure us of support on our environmental bills as part of the cabinet programme. |
| Date | 20:04:46, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | This election has not seen a slight shift to the left. If anything there has been a shift to the centre. The CCF-Greens can easily check on our voting history on environmental issues. As and where possible the environment is of major concern. It is only overidden by the necessity to provide livelihoods for our citizens. Hence we support labelling and endangered species protection. We supported the motion on transport etc. We oppose however the environment being placed ahead of the welfare of our people. Thus we oppose the banning of pesticides as this could easily lead to food shortages. We prefer to feed people to weevils. |
| Date | 20:18:13, July 11, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | As this bill is in contravention of the Inclusive Consensus Act and therefore against the law - and since Tuesday Is Coming is breaking the law whilst accepting responsibility for administering Justice - we appear to be entering a new era of lawlessness and crackpotism. As Bette Davis once said, fasten your safety belts, it's going to be a bumpy night. |
| Date | 20:27:52, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | The Inclusive consensus act is to be extinguished by the passing of this bill. If you prefer that we make this more explicit, then we can introduce a seperate bill to that effect. No law is set in stone. The Inclusive consensus act is not a constitutional bill and as such any other bill may overturn it. |
| Date | 20:32:45, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | We correct our last statement. The inclusive consensus act was a constitutional bill. As such there is a formal revocation of this included in the Political Freedom Act. |
| Date | 21:37:25, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | As the Council cannot serve in foreign affairs, this cabinet proposal becomes moot. |
| Date | 21:45:54, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | Would CCF accept the exchange between Foreign and Infrastructure. If so we will withdraw this and repropose with these two posts exchanged. |
| Date | 22:33:18, July 11, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | This bill does not repeal the Inclusive Consensus Act, it is simply a contravention of the law. As the Political Freedom Act is still in the debating stage and has therefore not even been brought to vote, it cannot precede this proposal. This bill, therefore, remains illegal and unconstitutional. The Adam Smith Party, whilst declaring itself to be "centrist", continues in its neo-fascist disregard for the law, the constitution, democracy and for the people of Lodamun. Its continued undemocratic, immoral and criminal approach to politics is a desecration of the memory of one of the most important thinkers in Scottish history. |
| Date | 22:49:34, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | Equitista. You were involved in the drafting of the Inclusive Rubbish Ac6t. It in irtself is no more binding than any other law. Any law that is passd that contradicts a previous law implicitly revokes that section of that law. No stop trying to be a lawyer, which you patently are not, and accept that you are not wanted in the cabinet. This bill is not going to be passed anyway, but your petty protests are not going to stop this government from forming a cabinet as it best sees fit. Have a nice hissy fit. |
| Date | 22:57:51, July 11, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | The voting register of the Inclusive Consensus Act shows it passed unanimously, including 2 votes from the ASPs. In typically fascist fashion the ASPs expect to make up the law as they go along while showing utter contempt for democratic principles. * Moderate Leftist Party of Lodamun (113) * Amystian Council (83) * CNT/AFL (58) * Sensible Activists Party (56) * CCF-Greens (46) * Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyite Party (46) * Equitista (42) * Adam Smith Party (2) |
| Date | 23:04:44, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | "As this bill is in contravention of the Inclusive Consensus Act and therefore against the law - and since Tuesday Is Coming is breaking the law whilst accepting responsibility for administering Justice - we appear to be entering a new era of lawlessness and crackpotism." We are breaking the law? Surely we have a right to vote as we see fit, isnt that the job of a political party? |
| Date | 23:06:03, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | New laws override old ones. If you don't like it vote against it. Nothing undemocratic here whatsoever. Just a resistance to a totalitarian attitude that we can express now that the potential civil war in Rapula is a distant memory. Extrraordinary times demand uncommon compromises, hence our initial support. However a more normal set of circumstances allows a return toi political choice rather than statistical slavery. As we have said, if you don't like it, vote against it. |
| Date | 23:11:30, July 11, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | The proposal of a cabinet is not a constitutional bill and therefore cannot override the Inclusive Consensus Act, which is. This proposal is illegal. It is in direct contravention of a constitutional amendment, it is, therefore, not a simply a crime, it is treason. |
| Date | 23:15:08, July 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | Whinge whinge whinge. This bill is being replaced by the March 2079 Cabinet proposal. No bill can be illegal. Like it or resign. |
| Date | 00:17:22, July 12, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | This bill has been superceded by the March 2079 cabinet proposal. |
| Date | 03:23:10, July 12, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | "Whinge whinge whinge. " If Adam was alive today, he'd be turning in his grave. |
| Date | 15:28:22, July 12, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | Aparently Equitista advocates the burying alive of anyone that opposes their view, judging by their last comment anyway. |
| Date | 21:54:22, July 12, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Cabinet Proposal of January 2079 |
| Message | Why is the ASP voting against it's own proposal? That's madness. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 349 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 101 |
| Random fact: It is not allowed to call more than 5 elections in 5 game years in a nation. The default sanction for a player persisting in the early election tactic will be a seat reset. |
| Random quote: "The Lord is a man of war" - Exodus 15:3 |