Wikination
Don't have an account?
Register
Register
in: Forum, Congress

Changes: Forum:First Chamber

Back to page
Edit source
Tag: sourceedit
(→‎Text: clarifying per TM)
Tag: sourceedit
Line 918: Line 918:
 
###social sciences, arts and humanities
  
###social sciences, arts and humanities
 
###environmental sciences
  
###environmental sciences
−
#Both government-owned and privately-owned organizations may apply for funding.
 +
#Both government-owned and privately-owned organizations may apply to the Council for funding.
  +
##Applications should be sent to the CEO by the 31st of December of each year, in order to receive funding at the start of the financial year in April.
  +
###Applications should specify the amount of funding required, the qualifications, experience and achievements of the applicants, and several supporting references.
 
##Funding to privately-owned organizations will be in the form of a purchase of a share in the organization and its profits. The share will be considered to be owned by the government, but administered by the Council.
  
##Funding to privately-owned organizations will be in the form of a purchase of a share in the organization and its profits. The share will be considered to be owned by the government, but administered by the Council.
 
##The following criteria should be considered before deciding to provide a grant:
  
##The following criteria should be considered before deciding to provide a grant:

Revision as of 00:44, 29 May 2015

Seal of the First Chamber

The First Chamber is not one of two chambers in a bicameral system. It is Lovian Congress' room for proposing and debating bills, which then go to the Second Chamber for a vote.

National Archives of the Congressional debates and votes:
1. First series
2. Second series
3. Third series
4. Fourth series
5. Fifth series
6. Sixth series
7. Seventh series
8. Eighth series
9. Ninth series
10. Tenth series
11. Eleventh series
12. Twelfth series
13. Thirteenth series
14. Fourteenth series
15. Fifteenth series
16. Sixteenth series

In Lovia, Congress is the national legislative body and the most powerful branch of government. The First Chamber is one of the two chambers of Congress, in which the Members of the Congress propose bills and debate them. The Second Chamber is where they are eventually voted. Despite the two-chamber system, Lovia does not have a bicameral parliament: there is only one group of MOTCs that both debates and votes the proposals. For the current composition of Congress, see this.

As prescribed by Article 6 of the Constitution, all Lovian citizens "may write and propose motions to the Federal Law", that "are presented to the Members of the Congress in the First Chamber." The MOTCs' duty is to "read the motion and form a personal opinion about it. In order to obtain the support of a majority of Members of the Congress, changes may be proposed in the First Chamber." If a majority is likely to be found, the proposer will move the bill to the Second Chamber for a vote.

The First Chamber is not a popular assembly where all citizens can express their personal interests. Polling the population ought to happen outside of Congress.

001. Establishing a PM and government

Here, MOTCs will vote for their preferred PM. The chosen one will then propose a government. If there's not a clear choice, multiple government proposals can be made. Vote Pro Pro for your preferred candidate and include the number of votes. --Semyon 17:37, April 30, 2015 (UTC)

Candidates

  • Anna Maria Whithdonck-Malsky (independent). Main aims: exclude CCPL and allied parties from government, abolish monarchy and Heretowship, work towards a socialist society, trial war criminals, establish two new ministries (Science and Equality).
    • Pro Pro (6 votes) --Semyon 17:37, April 30, 2015 (UTC)
    • Pro Pro (10 votes, but rename Equality to Social Affairs) —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:46, April 30, 2015 (UTC)
      • That's negotiable è. --Semyon 17:51, April 30, 2015 (UTC)
  • Justin Abrahams (United Left). Main aims: Work with parties across the spectrum to bring much-needed change and improvement to Lovia, not only socially but economicaly as well.
  • Neil Hardy (CCPL). Main aims: Bring much-wanted and overdue change to the Constitution in areas.
    • Pro Pro (7 votes) Happy65 18:10, April 30, 2015 (UTC)
    • Pro Pro (12+3=15 votes) --OuWTB 07:56, May 1, 2015 (UTC)
    • Pro Pro (3 votes) MartijnM (talk) 18:17, May 2, 2015 (UTC)
    • Pro Pro(7 votes) Bart K (talk) 11:46, May 3, 2015 (UTC)
    • Pro Pro (2 votes) Sithlent (talk) 15:21, May 3, 2015 (UTC)
  • Lukas Hoffmann (CNP). Main aims: Reform the Constitution to lower the effect of inactive Congresspersons, Introduce State investment funds to boost the economy, Strengthen Trade Unions and increase the power of workers, Create a national health service on a national level, Create laws and bolster policing to end the militia threat, Introduce social housing to house the most needy in society.
  • Vladek Przwalsky (OSB). Main aims: exclude AMWM and other communist and centralist beasts from government, abolish gay rights and murder laws, work towards an independent Oceana, trial corrupt politicians, establish a new ministry (Oceana Independence)
    • Pro Pro (3 votes) --OuWTB 11:56, May 1, 2015 (UTC)
  • Katie Conroy (LF). Main aims: Reform the Constitution to ensure that state governments work for everyone, resolve the housing crisis in Plains, legislate for a National Health Service, to end the disparity between state healthcare services, remove the homophobic and misogynistic CCPL from government
  • William Krosby (SLP). Main aims: exclude CCPL and allied parties from government, abolish Heretowship, work towards a socialist society, trial war criminals, establish new ministries (Science, Social Affairs, Urban Affairs, possible others), guarantee state councils in the Constitution based on democratic principles, introduce state investment funds, reverse excess decentralization, create a national health service on a national level, create laws and bolster policing to end the militia threat, introduce social housing to house the most needy in society, strengthen trade unions and increase the power of workers, reform education. (this consists mostly of Hoffmann's, Conroy's, and AMWM's goals)

Comments

In case everyone's gonna vote for himself, I might consider putting up a candidacy too :o --OuWTB 17:42, April 30, 2015 (UTC)

The CNP cannot support the communists like Maria nor can we align ourselves with UL as they are not clear on their aims and are too far left to merit our support at this stage. Further we cannot support the CCPL due to issues and declining relations during the campaign with some members. We will propose a moderate government, that many in Congress could support. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 20:46, April 30, 2015 (UTC)

But AMWM is the best. Sad —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:49, April 30, 2015 (UTC)

I have a reasonable but radical plan to put this country back into the hands of its citizens. To describe me as a communist is imbecilic fearmongering but exactly what I would expect from a party like the CNP. Sadly, Hoffmann's platform is the best of a meagre offering; he is the only candidate to offer any kind of changes that could influence Lovians' lives for the better. As for Abrahams' and Hardy's platforms, they are worryingly vague and most likely the cover for right-wing extremism. I expected offerings of this level of sophistication from our pathetic current crop of politicians but none the less it is deeply saddening that Lovia is so badly served by its so-called leaders. Shocking as it is to contemplate, I must confess the absence of the lily-livered liberals from the list of candidates is maleficient to our national wellbeing. Anna Maria Whithdonck-Malsky 21:06, April 30, 2015 (UTC)

@TM: AMWM is gay though :'( --OuWTB 08:32, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

It says on her page she has a husband. :P 77topaz (talk) 10:23, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

It's a cover. She looks like a dyke :'( --OuWTB 10:59, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm just going to let everyone else respond to that. :P 77topaz (talk) 11:09, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

It becomes clear that there is no support for true progressive reform in this nation - a fact sadifying, yet unsurprising. I am retreating from this race, and wish to thank all those who endorsed me, in particular SLP, whose support showed uncharacteristic foresight and bravery. Anna Maria Whithdonck-Malsky 20:10, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

20-22-21-3-7-19. With 92 of the 100 congresspeople having voted already, this is looking like a rather inconclusive vote. :o 77topaz (talk) 11:00, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

:o --Semyon 11:45, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

Due to the inability to gather enough support, I have decided to withdraw my candidacy. I jointly endorse Katie Conroy and Lukas Hoffmann. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:47, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

I would like to thank my colleagues for their support. Tomorrow I will outline a proposal for a government for people to look at as MOTCs continue to choose Lovia's next Prime Minister Frijoles333 TALK 22:06, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

New elections

I request new elections. This will become one great mess Pierlot McCrooke 21:22, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

Not true. If another government does not come into being, the old government will continue. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 21:30, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it'll come to that. :P I think the mess will tidy itself soon, though. --Semyon 21:34, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

Well, it remains to be seen whether anyone will be able to get majority support for a government proposal. :o 77topaz (talk) 02:03, May 2, 2015 (UTC)

I oppose new elections because we just have had them MartijnM (talk) 18:10, May 2, 2015 (UTC)

Ministries

Why don't we just leave the PM shit for now and first decide on who wants which ministries. Just sign where you like. --OuWTB 12:34, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

002. Hoffmann II Government (now with much less conventions)

  • PM:
    • Lukas Hoffmann (Kunarian)
  • Agriculture:
    • Rakham Tarik Al-Asmari (Viva)
  • Commerce:
    • Neil Hardy (Happy)
  • Culture:
    • George Wrexley (TheMaster001)
  • Defence:
    • Lukas Hoffmann (Kunarian)
  • Education:
    • William Krosby (Time)
  • Energy and resources:
    • Nicholas Sheraldin (Topaz)
  • Environment:
    • Bart Koenen (Bart)
  • Social Affairs:
    • Katie Konroy (Frijoles)
  • Family, youth and elderly:
    • Oos Wes Ilava (Oos)
  • Finance:
    • William Krosby (Time)
  • Foreign affairs:
    • Aina Sarria (Traspes)
  • Health:
    • Justin Abrahams (Horton)
  • Justice:
    • Charles Jones (4Kant)
  • Labour:
    • Justin Abrahams (Horton)
  • Minorities:
    • Martijn Mans (Martijn)
  • Tourism and sport:
    • Neil Hardy (Happy)
  • Transportation:
    • Oos Wes Ilava (Oos)
  • Science:
    • (Semyon, when he makes a moderate MotC)
  • Speaker of the congress:
    • Borya Hájek (Kunarian)

Feel free to change the names as appropriate.

The above list is my proposed government. It is designed to try and represent the spread of power in the Congress between the parties and allocate Ministries to those with the most interest in said areas and to make sure everyone has something they can focus on. This government is designed to not allow a lurch to the left or right in great degrees but to focus the best policies in the places where they are most needed at the current times.

My proposed budget will be one that aims for a minor deficit, investing in the economy to help it grow, with the intention to pay the debt off next Congress. We shall ensure low taxes on the poorest and try and raise L$2-3 billion (from the current L$8 billion in the economy) to fund government expenditure. I will ask that States do not levy taxes while we rebalance and repair the States that are in most need. We will aim to devolve spending down to Ministries and States where applicable and encourage Ministers to take an active role in allocating resources.

I will personally be introducing the following bills to Congress over the coming months as part of my main aims. They are listed in no particular order.

  • Constitutional Reform Bills
    • Congressional Reform Bill - a bill to reduce the effect of inactives on Congress
    • Second State Reform Bill - a bill to rebalance power between state and federal level
  • State Investment Fund Bill - a bill to introduce controlled economic investment by States
  • Adult Education Bill - a bill to introduce supported adult education, particularly education of the unemployed
  • Trade Disputes Bill - a bill to give unions and workers powers over their labour, and to regulate disputes
  • Health Reform Bills
    • National Health Service Bill - a bill to create a national health service, replacing state models
    • Tripartite Care Bill - a bill to ensure physical, mental and social care are integrated
  • Housing Reform Bills
    • Social Rents Bill - a bill to create a requirement for state and federal governments to provide social rents to the neediest
    • Home Building Bill - a bill to create a system of support for building, repairing and renovating homes
  • Defence Bills
    • Firearms Reform Bill - a bill to change and better regulate how firearms are controlled in Lovia
    • Militia Reform Bill - a bill to provide for greater ability to persecute insurgents and militia groups
  • Education Reform Bills
    • School Building Bill - a bill to create a system of support for building, repairing and renovating schools
    • Educational Board Reform Bill - a bill to create one universal educational board to provide official qualifications regulation

Everyone who is in Congress will obviously be able to partake in these debates, and we'll hopefully - as we have in the past - come to a reasonable conclusion on each debate and create many good laws and reforms. These bills that I will introduce do not obviously mean others cannot contribute other bills. I encourage people to come to Congress with issues or ideas so we may debate them and see if legislation is needed.

I propose this with the hope that we can get onto governing and legislating as soon as possible. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 15:03, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I am happy to accept suggestions for a replacement speaker. As I will only take the role if no one else is interested in the responsibilities that the role brings. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 15:06, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

Looks good :) --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 18:45, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

Pro :o --OuWTB 11:32, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

Me too. Bart K (talk) 12:45, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

I will probably change the speaker to either Topaz or Time before I move this to the Second Chamber. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 15:27, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

I am fine with you as Speaker. Prö! —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:15, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

I emphatically veto this proposal. It is yet another example of the conservative elite attempting to subvert our democracy. The left-wing has made immense sacrifices in order to agree on a single prime ministerial candidate, whose candidacy by-the-by has over double the support in congress than Mr. Hoffmann's. We will not now allow our clear electoral victory to be wrested from us by a failed prime minister with no record and no mandate. Mr. Hoffmann's claim that he alone can unite left and right - if it were true, which it is patently not - stands in astonishing contrast to his leadership of an extremist party, refuge of many fascists, war criminals and IGPmen. Were all attempts by the left to form a government to prove futile, the basic principle of democracy would demand that I endorse the Christofascist Mr. Hardy over the discredited Mr. Hoffmann. Anna Maria Whithdonck-Malsky 16:59, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

Will Martijn be active enough to be a minister, though? And, the ministry he expressed interest in was Minorities, which is quite a diferent ministry to MoTaS. The same goes for Bart, who has had long periods of little activity in th past few years, although he's become more active as of late, so if he can keep that up, he might be active enough. 77topaz (talk) 23:13, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

But he did get Minorities. :o —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:16, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I read that wrong. Then the same message I wrote for the Conroy I government applies. 77topaz (talk) 23:19, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't read that wrong. In the list in the Second Chamber for the Hoffmann II Government Martijn is listed at Tourism and Sport, and Minorities isn't even in that list, so that should be fixed. 77topaz (talk) 10:07, May 6, 2015 (UTC)

Corrected. Also on the concerns of inactivity for ministers, I feel that they will contribute sufficiently to be able to be granted a ministry. Their long term activity is better than most and while they don't perhaps contribute to the wiki as a whole as much as others Martijn does normally take an interest in the Chambers and elections and Bart is becoming more active recently. Each only have one ministry and I hope they contribute fully, others in the past have been active but not contributed to their ministries at all whether they have had one, two or three and I think I might do something about scrutiny of ministers in this Congress. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 11:01, May 6, 2015 (UTC)

003. Hardy I Government

  • PM:
    • Neil Hardy (Happy)
  • Agriculture:
    • George Wrexley (TM001)
  • Commerce:
    • Bart Koenen (Bart K)
  • Culture:
    • Arthur Sythey (Sithlent)
  • Defence:
    • Lukas Hoffmann/Aina Sarria (Kunarian/Traspes)
  • Education:
    • William Krosby (Time)
  • Energy and resources:
    • Rakham Tarik Al-Asmari (Viva)
  • Environment:
    • Bart Koenen (Bart)
  • Social Affairs:
    • Katie Konroy (Frijoles)
  • Family, youth and elderly:
    • Oos Wes Ilava (Oos)
  • Finance:
    • William Krosby (Time)
  • Foreign affairs:
    • Aina Sarria/Lukas Hoffmann (Traspes/Kunarian)
  • Health:
    • Justin Abrahams (Horton)
  • Justice:
    • Charles Jones (4kant)
  • Labour:
    • Justin Abrahams (Horton)
  • Minorities:
    • Martijn Mans (Martijn)
  • Tourism and sport:
    • Neil Hardy/Nicholas Sheraldin (Happy/Topaz)
  • Transportation:
    • Oos Wes Ilava (Oos)
  • Science:
    • Anna-Maria Whitdonck-Malsky (Semyon)
  • Speaker of the Congress:
    • Nicolas Sheraldin (Topaz)

The proposed Hardy I Government would look to create an active and stable congress, including parties from across the spectrum. We feel it is necessary to create a National Health Service, replacing the current system, whereby not all states currently have an active health service. We look to work closely with proposed Minister of Education William Krosby, creating a national education board and providing funds to renovate poor schools. We also look to reduce the effect of inactive members of the congress by creating an edit criteria in the terms of congress members. We look to protect minority languages and culture and teach minority languages in late primary, secondary and tertiary education. We look to impose Animal protection laws, and make sure animal cruelty will be punished.

Discussion

004. Conroy I Government

  • Prime Minister
  • Agriculture
    • Nicholas Sheraldin (Topaz)
  • Commerce
    • Charles Jones (Subject to discussion with 4kant and Kun)
  • Culture
    • William Krosby (TM)
  • Defence
    • Lukas Hoffmann (Subject to discussion with Kun)
  • Education
    • William Krosby (TM)
  • Energy and Resources
    • Aina Sarria (Traspes)
  • Environment
    • Justin Abrahams (Horton)
  • Social Affairs
    • Aina Sarria (Traspes)
  • Family, Youth and Elderly
    • Lovian Future character (Frijoles)
  • Finance
    • Justin Abrahams (Horton)
  • Foreign Affairs
    • Lovian Future character (Frijoles)
  • Health
    • Justin Abrahams (Horton)
  • Justice
    • Rakham Tarik Al-Asmari (Viva)
  • Labour
    • AMWM (Semyon)
  • Minorities
    • AMWM (Semyon)
  • Tourism and Sport
    • Neil Hardy (Happy, subject to support from Hardy)
  • Transportation
    • Lovian Future character (Frijoles)
  • Science
    • Nicholas Sheraldin (Topaz)
  • Speaker
    • Neil Hardy (Happy, subject to support from Hardy)

This is my government proposal. It is a response to calls from throughout our country for a more progressive government.

The following are the policy areas on which I wish to focus over the coming months. I seek to propose the following acts in Congress, in hope of a re-energised and vibrant Lovia.

  • State Governments Act- We seek to open a dialogue with groups from across the spectrum in order to reform how state governments work. Ultimately, our goal is for State Councils to have control over issues such as culture, language, environment and education, with the federal government taking on more responsibility for policy areas such as housing, healthcare and welfare.
  • National Healthcare Act- As mentioned above, we will legislate for a national framework of physical, mental and social healthcare, incorporating the existing state healthcare systems. We hope this will end disparity and inequality between the healthcare services of state governments.
  • Higher Education Act- We will provide further investment in our universities, and open a discussion on tuition fees, with the aim of abolishing them, or at the very least putting a cap on them. This act will also promote higher vocational education and work-based training
  • Housing Act- We will seek to resolve problems with housing across Lovia, with a system of social housing, and increased federal investment in homebuilding.

In addition, I will also seek to implement minor legislation in the following policy areas:

  • Minor amendments to Primary and Secondary Education Acts- Creation of Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) to guarantee high standards of teaching in all Lovian schools
  • Support for working families- We will introduce childcare vouchers to ensure that parents of young children are able to balance work with their family life. We will also consider a system of paid parental leave for new parents, to be shared between both parents

We hope this plan for stable leadership will provide for a more prosperous, progressive Lovia that all citizens can benefit from- Frijoles333 TALK 16:30, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

A list of ministry positions will be added momentarily pending further discussion

Discussion

Freshman leader of a seven seat party as PM? Can't support this. :o —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:32, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

Freshman leader of a farily popular new party? Deserves a chance at proving herself and I could support this. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 16:33, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

Katie Conroy is inexperienced and thus unacceptable as PM. Frijoles is fine but would have to make a character with much more political experience. Shut up, Horton. :o —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:34, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

Time, we would not make an issue out of this if it were you with a freshman character Frijoles333 TALK 16:34, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't put a freshman candidate up for PM. :o —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:36, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

But if you did, I wouldn't get all cray-cray about it :o Frijoles333 TALK 16:38, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

We're both fairly tolerant and wouldn't go ranting and gettign angry. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 16:39, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

Is TM getting angry? :o --Semyon 16:43, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, the above was a rhetorical question. It doesn't appear to me that he is. --Semyon 17:03, May 4, 2015 (UTC)
:o —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:20, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

Too inexperienced. Also, the complete lack of CCPL makes me veto this. --OuWTB 18:42, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

Several parties on the left (and AMWM of course) expressed an interest in a CCPL-less government, and this is a response to those calls. I'm sure the CCPL will still have fun debating on our bills in Congress :o Frijoles333 TALK 18:51, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

This won't get a majority without CNP and SLP, plus Wrexley being inactive further jeopardizes it. :o —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:28, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

Check the statistics Time. We currently are ahead on votes, so if our proposal can't get a majority, no one else's can either. MOTCs have thrown their weight behind this proposal, and you seem to be the only one who has issues with Katie :o Frijoles333 TALK 20:30, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

You probably put me as Agriculture because I nominated myself for Environment, but Agriculture is nearly the opposite of that ministry. :P 77topaz (talk) 11:10, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. the first is mostly protecting the land, the second is mostly exploiting it :P I don't mind at all Topaz environment though. He'd be good for that, and then maybe we'd get a national park for the only state who has none. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 13:02, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Topaz. I'll move you to environment then before I move this to the Second Chamber :P Frijoles333 TALK 15:58, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: Happy didn't actually say he wanted to be MoTaS again in the interest section, and why should we have one CCPL minister when some of the others (AMWM etc., don't want to work with them? 77topaz (talk) 23:03, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

Cuz he needs 50 votes. :o —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:17, May 5, 2015 (UTC)
Unlike you Time, I'm not betraying my voters in order to pander to my ideological rivals, so don't lecture me on that. Frijoles333 TALK 17:33, May 6, 2015 (UTC)
I didn't make any promises not to work with CCPL, and all of my voters except maybe Semyon (since I think he's just doing this IC :P) are not opposed to CCPL. :o And I don't see how I'm lecturing you on stating that you need 50 votes, which you won't get. :o —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:37, May 6, 2015 (UTC)
You stated several times that "you couldn't support a CCPL government". You're lecturing me by implying that I only included Happy because I wanted votes. Not true. Perhaps I included him because I saw that you (and others) disagreed with a complete lack of CCPL. And you're contradicting yourself AGAIN... you previously said, on this very thread, that a "complete lack" of CCPL was another reason you voted against my proposal. I get it. I know you don't want me as PM, and I know that I probably won't become PM, but I'm getting a little tired of all these negative comments on my proposal :o Frijoles333 TALK 19:47, May 6, 2015 (UTC)
:o I don't disagree with the lack of CCPL (I have no strong feelings either way), I just don't think Conroy is a good choice for PM for multiple IC reasons I've already stated. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:15, May 6, 2015 (UTC)
@Topaz: Although I didn't want the CCPL in government, I don't want to burn bridges with my congressional colleagues. Hope that you and other leftist colleagues are still able to support this Frijoles333 TALK 17:33, May 6, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but he can get 50 votes with LF+UL+CNP+GP+RI+SLP+AMWM as well. :P 77topaz (talk) 23:20, May 5, 2015 (UTC)
But CNP, SLP, 1/3 of GP, and 1/4 of UL aren't voting this. :o Btw, I'm on chat. :o —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:29, May 5, 2015 (UTC)
But if the Hoffman II Government ends up without a majority, they'll probably support this over the Hardy I Government. 77topaz (talk) 23:54, May 5, 2015 (UTC)
I'd think that if I don't fully like either Conroy's or Hardy's proposals and if other people don't like them, then rather than support the least worst, they'll support neither. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 00:33, May 6, 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, I don't think the inclusion of one CCPL minister would be enough to garner their support (Oos has already voted contra), so Hardy's inclusion just lessens the potential votes for the government. 77topaz (talk) 10:05, May 6, 2015 (UTC)

Also, the lists in the First and Second Chambers for the Conroy I government aren't exactly the same. 77topaz (talk) 10:01, May 6, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a few minor adjustments have been made. I hope I can still rely on your support though Topaz :) Frijoles333 TALK 17:28, May 6, 2015 (UTC)

005. Overrule Oceana State Government on Deer Garden Temple

It appears that parties like RTP and OSB, and perhaps others, have conspired to disallow mild funding of the Deer Garden Temple, and allow it to be demolished. I propose to overrule the Oceana State Government on this, and provide $5,000/year for maintenance to allow the temple to break even. I also propose to condemn the RTP and OSB for showing religious favoritism, violating our principles of separation of church and state in this nation, in desiring to build a mega-church on the site. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:31, May 6, 2015 (UTC)

First of all, in line with separation of church and state, I am not sure anyone should be funding this. Further I am of the thought that neither should any government of Lovia, state or federal, be purchasing lands or building religious buildings or funding religious matters. This should be left to private religious individuals and groups.
Of course I will further look into the situation and aim to ensure I am fully informed. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 00:36, May 6, 2015 (UTC)
Good point. :o But I am mainly concerned about the fact that OSB and RTP blocked a very modest proposal to maintain the temple. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:37, May 6, 2015 (UTC)
My colleague in the Oceana State Council has brought the matter to attention. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 01:02, May 6, 2015 (UTC)
:o --OuWTB 08:56, May 6, 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, in defence of the State of Oceana, the temple was constructed illegally in 2011 ([1]), and it is still an agricultural (light green) lot instead of an administrative one (grey). So, the temple shouldn't be there in the first place. --OuWTB 09:20, May 6, 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Kun on this one. The government should not interfere in matters of religion. An interesting issue to be added at this stage in the discussions, might I add Frijoles333 TALK 17:26, May 6, 2015 (UTC)

006. Abolish Monarchy and Heretowships

I propose to abolish the monarchy and heretowships. The monarchy would need a 2/3 majority to pass (and would constitute removal of several parts of Article I), while the heretowships would need a normal majority. Thoughts? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:19, May 8, 2015 (UTC)

These positions are an affront to the meritocratic society Lovia claims to be and especially insult women. Pro Pro Anna Maria Whithdonck-Malsky 22:06, May 8, 2015 (UTC)
I support it. No more Heretow 'Oshenna and no monarchy. Lovia is a modern country and dosen't need anymore the monarchy. Traspes - Dianna Bartol LOGO POSITIVE BLOCK 01:20, May 9, 2015 (UTC)
I support the move to abolish the monarchy. The Xania Encyclopedia Wiki Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:45, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

The Party for the Northern Territory declares neutrality on these matters but stresses that a referendum is necessary for the monarchy and that after a recent referendum a new one is unnecessary. Dimitri Kalinnikov 01:36, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

Contra Contra I am completely against this. We've had a referendum recently and there was near consensus to not abolish the monarchy. And you shouldn't go against the wishes of the Oceana people by abolishing the Heretow 'Oshenna position, Happy65 07:52, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

Good luck updating all pages. --OuWTB 09:26, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to see a referendum for the monarchy. I personally like it but if a majority of Lovians via a vote prefer a republic I wouldn't be heavily opposed. Now, on the heretow, I don't support the use of the position for his political aims and gains. I'd prefer a heretow as a cultural leader instead of being a further tool to continue with the hegemony over Oceana. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 22:01, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

A referendum? We already had one last year, and the near consensus decision was to stay as a monarchy. With all the effort Oos has put in to Oceana, he deserves to be the Heretow. And furthermore, '.... the Heretow has no political function..." is not for his political aims and gains. So, the only political function he has is to influence politics through speeches? Feel free to head over to the Speakers' Corner and make a speech. Any one can.

This new government is completely destroying Lovia. I can't believe that parties such as the Social Liberal Party, the Green Party and United Left have supported what has happened here. CCPL has always included other parties in government, despite our ideological differences. We've negotiated on our policies and have managed to create a stable Lovia with a wide range of pages, people from across the spectrum working at their favoured ministry.

But as soon as you are able to make a coalition that excludes CCPL you take your opportunity. The new government seems to be against all minorities, in particular failing to include the Limburgish Minority Party. It'll be interesting to see the mess Lovia turns in to. Happy65 Flag of Lovia Small 08:43, May 10, 2015 (UTC)

007. Recognise the Religious Status of the Northern States

The North has long been god-fearing and thus we need to recognise the proper religious status of the various territories in the Northern States. These religious status' should ensure that all schools in the area teach good moral values. Further funding should be devolved to support religious events, especially religious event that bring Christians together, particularly in Seven.

We propose that Clymene be recognised as a Catholic/Protestant religious State. And that American island in Seven be considered Protestant while Philosophers island be considered Orthodox, all other islands will be considered a mixture of Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox. This will ensure that societies are stable and morally unified.

I would hope that the funding would be to the tune of L$10,000,000 for the religious events. As we must make lots of these events to be able to truly generate a unified spirit in the North. Dimitri Kalinnikov 02:32, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

There's a separation of church and state in Lovia. :P 77topaz (talk) 02:39, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

This is not outlined anywhere. The North deserves to have its heratage protected. Dimitri Kalinnikov 03:02, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

You yourself implied a separation of church and state two sections above this. :P 77topaz (talk) 03:15, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

Those were the thoughts and feelings of Hoffmann. I cannot be held accountable for his words. The North must be given the recognition it deserves. Dimitri Kalinnikov 03:17, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

008. AMWM Plans

We should come up with some legislation we want to pass soon. In order to begin the proper transition to socialism, I think we should aim to make laws putting industry in the hands of the workers. In the meantime, we should reform health, educations, state governments, etc. I would like volunteers to help write laws. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:55, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

Contra Contra Happy65 19:05, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

Interesting thought, thanks. I'll be sure to take it into consideration. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:29, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

:o --Semyon 19:46, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate my constructive ideas. Happy65 19:59, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

I, Dimitri Kalinnikov, would like to write reforms concerning the position of the North within this Union. Further I would like to reform education to create proper moral teachings in the schools of Clymene and Seven further we should increase funding for social events particularly of a religious nature or to bring northern communities together. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 20:04, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

Have we fallen silent on our plans? Bart K (talk) 10:01, May 12, 2015 (UTC)

We're waiting for AMWM to die from radiation in Burenia :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 13:35, May 12, 2015 (UTC)

How far are we already with nuking? :o --OuWTB 13:56, May 12, 2015 (UTC)

We've nuked every island except Sārac :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 14:08, May 12, 2015 (UTC)

They dead now? :o --OuWTB 14:09, May 12, 2015 (UTC)

Kòb's people are indeed dead :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 16:59, May 12, 2015 (UTC)

Who we gonna send as an army now then? :o --OuWTB 17:25, May 12, 2015 (UTC)

Are we then going to send an army? :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 18:25, May 12, 2015 (UTC)

Yes :o --OuWTB 18:37, May 12, 2015 (UTC)

Reinvading Lovia wasn't part of the plan though, so we'll first have to hold a vote in the Síłe :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 05:29, May 13, 2015 (UTC)

:o --OuWTB 08:00, May 13, 2015 (UTC)

:P Haven't you guys heard of nuclear fallout? 77topaz (talk) 08:02, May 13, 2015 (UTC)

:o You patronizing us? :'( --OuWTB 08:45, May 13, 2015 (UTC)

I'm pointing out a possible flaw in your plan. :P 77topaz (talk) 08:49, May 13, 2015 (UTC)

You are a possible flaw in our plan though :'( --OuWTB 11:38, May 13, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should assign roles to government members. To start, we need act for housing, education (de-vouchering), and healthcare. I can take education. Since Semyon is on leave, maybe Frijoles can write the housing act and Horton the healthcare one (mainly being nationalization of the state laws). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:06, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

009. Lovia Recycles Act

I hope to introducing a nationwide recycling program to both help the environment and to reprocess/reuse many items that would otherwise be discarded. Not all states have one and we should. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 16:25, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

  1. Recycling in Lovia is mandated for by the Federal Government, and both implemented and managed by Lovia's states.
  2. Lovia will employ a common collection system for different types of recycling via a number of bins. These include:
    1. a green bin, for food waste going for composting
    2. a red bin, for plastics, glass and metal
    3. a blue bin, for paper and cardboard
    4. States may addition other bins for further recycling including batteries, electronics, hazardous materials and other items not recyclable within the current three bins.
  3. The collection of recyclable materials for the red, green, blue and other potential bins shall be done as is done for garbage collection.
    1. States are free to determine dates for its collection, as well as the frequency, so long as it is done no less than twice per month.
  4. All states will also have a number of designated collection points for recycling or disposing of items not recyclable via home collection, operating alongside curbside collection.
    1. These collection points may be used to dispose or recycle batteries, electrical and electronic items, hazardous items, construction material, raw materials and large or uncommon items unable to be properly collected at the curbside.

Who decides how many collection points a state gets? And maybe we should federalize these services. :o —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:36, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

These are exactly the things states should handle. --OuWTB 16:40, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

:o Come on chat. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:40, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

It would probably the state deciding, and the number would probably be linked to population (ex. it doesn't make sense to have 10 in Glesga or 1 in NC). We could federalize, but it makes more sense to have them administered at a more local level, since it is a more local matter. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 16:42, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe myself as a libertarian, but I don't really support bin colours being mandated in law. :o I don't have a problem with the idea of such an act, though. --Semyon 15:38, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Well I thought coordination would be good. And anyeays it's not like I'm specifying Pantone Red or Prussian Blue; here states would be able to choose the shades, sizes etc. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 15:46, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

010. Values of Lovia

I firstly want to amend the constitution for this: 

=== Article 2 ===

Article 2 – Rights of every human being in Lovia

  1. Every human being and citizen has the right:
    1. Of freedom of thought, meaning and religion.
    2. Of equality, by race, religion, political opinion, language,

sex, property, birth or other statuses.

    1. Of privacy.
    2. To have personal or common property.
    3. To be arrested in a trial and to be treated correctly.
    4. To have a residence.
    5. To work and to receive education.
    6. To relax and recreate.
    7. To live in peace with his or her fellow-men.
    8. To live in welfare.
    9. To become a Lovian citizen.
  2. Every Lovian citizen has the right:
    1. To have a number of residences in Lovia, but no more than three.
  3. Every Lovian citizen above the minimum age requirement has the right:
    1. To vote in federal and state elections.
      1. The minimum age requirement is set at:
        1. Eighteen years, for the federal elections.
        2. Either sixteen, seventeen or eighteen years, for the state elections, at the discretion of the government of the respective state.
      2. No citizen may be barred from voting on grounds of their gender, sexual orientation, race, personal beliefs, or religious background.

I also want to change the parts in the Marriage act to change two persons to man and woman. I also want to introduce corrective measures for homosexuals, ban gay characters on Lovian TV shows and ban gay organizations Jack Shilton 17:53, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

This is homophobic discrimination. Contra Contra, obviously. 77topaz (talk) 20:37, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

Tåpas, for once your complaints actually make sense :o --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 08:28, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
Pierlot, I am disappointed. :'( --Semyon 15:35, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
For very obvious reasons I'm Contra Contra... Who's Jack Shilton anyway Frijoles333 TALK 15:48, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Unamused —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:57, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

011. National Healthcare Service Act

See User:TimeMaster/Legislation. I am seeking critique and suggestions, which can be posted below. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:57, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

You should stop trying to create something that destroys anything private or separate and leave out terms that suggest that a health service is some sort of nationalistic object that all Lovians must be loyal to. I think you should start anew if you really believe in fixing the issues between state and federal levels. Personally I am inclined to post my own Act that I wrote prior to this election simply to ensure that all Lovians get a moderate and measured system that includes mental health and that doesn't charge doctors and nurses to enter their professions (what about psychologists? or surgeons even?), that and that doesn't create unbound statements like "It is illegal for any entity to attempt to undermine the National Healthcare Service." I mean where does that begin and end? What is an entity and what is undermining? If I am a person and I choose to utilise private care rather than the NHS am I undermining it? What about if a politician criticises the operation of the NHS, is that undermining it? What if I run a private health care company that people utilise over the NHS, am I undermining it? There is no clarity although I doubt people will see that because the lack of clarity is hidden amongst the sheer length of the act which seems to repeat itself several times over.

I think that the changes I desire will be too great, and I hope that this act does not get passed. I will propose an alternative so that people do not feel that they have to vote for this act to get an NHS, instead they can see where the differences lie and vote on what approach they think is better. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 00:03, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree that healthcare should not be nationalized. It doesn't destroy anything private, it simply discourages it. Psychiatry and surgery are branches of medicine. This system does include mental health. I can remove the charge to examine if you wish, but it's intended to help fund the design of the examinations and pay the proctor. I will clarify the section about undermining, it is only actions (such as state establishing a rival healthcare service :o) causing direct harm to the NHS. At sheer length: I know there are some very similar parts, and would appreciate if you pointed out redundant sections. I thank you for proposing an alternative. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:10, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

Firstly where did I say that healthcare should not be nationalised. You have clearly not read what I wrote. I in fact said that I would be supporting a different form of NHS.
And there is no need to discourage private, that should not be the intention of any act! The intention of this act should be to ensure that everyone gets care when they need it. And you have only just modified the act to include mental health.
Further if you can alleviate the charge to patients by just having the state pay the doctors you can alleviate the charge to doctors and nurses. Also your clause is still unclear, what is direct? And I would argue that a state (or company for that matter) having its own healthcare service would not harm the NHS if it was adhering to proper principles of the NHS. This is the problem, your act is too far reaching, anything can be considered a direct action from your view.
I'll not comment further, I think it's simply best if I publish mine once I finalise it. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 00:47, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
"...suggest that a health service is some sort of nationalistic object that all Lovians must be loyal to." I did read what you wrote, but I suppose I misunderstood.
Exactly, because of your pointing out of that. I nowhere implied that it did not include mental health. I don't see a problem with discouraging private.
Not sure what you mean about having state pay to doctors. I don't think states should set up competing services, though they may run hospitals. I disagree that it's too far reaching.
I look forward to it. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:52, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
Katie Conroy and Lovian Future would be prepared to support this bill, although I believe some more debate is needed so that we can address everyone's concerns. As Kunarian has already said, I think we should rethink the statement "it is illegal for any entity to attempt to undermine the National Healthcare Service", as it's too vague and doesn't really mean anything until you define what would constitute undermining the NHS Frijoles333 TALK 18:12, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
I revised that line. I am open to and welcome all suggestions. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:21, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
The Act looks good. It is important for Lovia to have universal healthcare nationwide, so the creation of NHS is definitely useful. 77topaz (talk) 22:12, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

012. Tax Rates

Since the former CNP is sadified that the government coalition hasn't put forward tax rates, we should discuss them. We will need income tax, property tax, and import tax. I propose an untaxed first half hectare, followed by $50 per year ((I have no idea what a reasonable rate is :o)) for every hectare after that (with subsidies for farms?), and a flat 8% ((?)) for import tax. For income tax, I propose an untaxed first $30,000, followed by 10% from $30,000 to $50,000, 20% from $50,000 to $80,000, 30% from $80,000 to $120,000, 40% from $120,000 to $180,000, 50% from $180,000 to $250,000, 60% from $250,000 to $400,000, 70% from $400,000 to $600,000, 80% from $600,000 to $1,000,000, and 95% above that. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:52, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

Up to the $50,000, the tax is fine, but after, it's too much. Maybe, make it more only by 5% and not by 10%. Traspes - Dianna Bartol LOGO POSITIVE BLOCK

First of all, property tax is split into land rates and property rates and you have the protected rate. Second of all the income tax rates proposed is punitive, and will simply drive the wealthy and those with ambition over to america where the top tax rate is 30-40%. I'm sure you'll say it won't happen but it will, it happened in France and they didn't even go as far as this proposal suggests we should. I mean do you really think that people will stay if you take almost every cent in the dollar off them when they earn it?

I propose this more moderate situation:

Income Tax:

Tax Exclusion of L$21,000
First Rate of 20% (21,000 to 52,000)
Second Rate of 30% (52,000 to 144,000)
Third Rate of 40% (144,000 to 626,000)
Fourth Rate of 50% (626,000 plus)

Property Tax:

Tax Exclusion of 60 Square Metres for Property
Property Rate of 50 Cents a Metre
Tax Exclusion of 40,000 Square Metres for Land
Land Rate of 5 Cents a Metre
Protected Rate of 1 Cent a Metre

Imported Sales Tax:

10% IST Rate

It'd raise L$2,643,796,000 Which should be more than enough for the various projects the States and Nation need to enact. It would not certainly be punitive to the richest but would ask them to lend the country a helping hand in this time of need (86% of Income Tax would come from those with over L$100,000 in earnings). The Property taxes allow small farmers and homeowners to be free of tax while requiring large property owning corporations and business people to contribute. The Imported Sales Tax would help keep Lovian industry protected during this fragile time. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 12:42, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, but I would like to lower the first rate a bit and raise the rates for the wealthiest up to at least 60%. Your proposal for Property tax and IST seem good. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:44, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point, we cannot raise taxes higher than that otherwise the rich will undoubtedly leave. You need to be practical. This is more than enough money, I am not opposed to lowering the lower rates at all, but raising the higher ones will mean money leaving Lovia and I doubt it will come back if these kinds of anti-success policies continue. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 12:53, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
Remember the aim of tax is to raise revenue not to punish people. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 12:54, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
What is success? Taking money off the labour of others because you own the means of production? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:57, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
So you prove it. This is your idea of punishing people who own things. Let's go to real life now. My partner's father owns his own business, he is the only labourer. He works every day of the week, he buys cars, fixes them up and sells them on. He buys caravans, fixes them up and sells them on. He worked his bones off to get where he is. And what he earns is in excess of £300,000 a year. Which in Lovian Dollars would be L$528,000. Under your system he would have this money beaten out of him with a brutal 70%. YOU would be taking money from his labour because YOU hate people who earn a lot.
You're disgusting to propose that people should be punished for earning more. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 13:07, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
You bring up a good point. Ideally the amount of compensation people will receive will be based off the amount of labour they perform. Unfortunately, we live in a capitalist society at the moment and will have to make high taxes. Either way, people don't need to have that much money. What will he spend it on? Another house? It would be better off paying for the society's healthcare, education, and other services that may help him and the society he lives in. You're disgusting for supporting the bourgeoisie. :o —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:10, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
You're disgusting. You first say that anyone earning a large amount must be exploiting others labour but when I prove that isn't the case you just say "They don't need that money" and "we live in a capitalist society at the moment and will have to make high taxes". WHO ARE YOU to decide what money people SHOULD have? And how does capitalism have ANYTHING to do with the fact that you want to rob people straight up of their hard earnings. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 13:18, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
Because, the obscenely rich don't perform labour that makes them deserve their money. "Hard earnings" are the opposite of profit earned from owning a corporation, etc. Would you please stop name-calling and using all-caps. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:40, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
So what? The example I gave you, a man who works 7 days a week, manual labour fixing all types of vehicles that other people sell off because they can't be bothered to fix them. He doesn't deserve his money? So much for the "fruits of your labour"! And I haven't name called, I've pointed out that you are disgusting to suggest that a man who works 7 days a week manual labour and manages to earn a lot of money doesn't deserve it! Then have the cheek to turn around and claim that the "rich don't perform labour that makes them deserve their money". Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 13:59, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
We still need to take into consideration our better-off citizens, though, despite them making what they make. I might not have any problem paying 50% or 60% in takes If I have a lot and make a lot, but it's rarely the case, and like all people, they'll want to pay lower taxes. Even Denmark's upper-range for taxation is at just over 50%. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 13:03, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

If you're all so angry that people earn more for bad reasons, is the answer not to deal with those bad reasons and not blanketly punish everyone good or bad! Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 13:22, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

I think a top tax rate of 80% is unacceptable. A 50% tax bracket would be the highest I would be prepared to support. Of course the more wealthy should be made to contribute a little bit more, but we shouldn't punish people for being successful. Obviously there are some people who earn more for "bad reasons", but there are better ways to address that than high tax rates for every wealthy person. I don't support the bill in its current form, and I think Kunarian has proposed some good solutions to this problematic piece of legislation. I might be a leftie, but that doesn't mean I think we should hate on the wealthy Frijoles333 TALK 18:17, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
I can support 50% on the top. My initial proposal was an attempt to get a better compromise. :o :o —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:29, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
You don't propose things you think gets you a better compromises you propose what you think is right. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 09:08, May 22, 2015 (UTC)

OWTB

  • Tax Exclusion of L$25,000
  • First Rate of 10% (25,000 to 50,000)
  • Second Rate of 25% (50,000 to 150,000)
  • Third Rate of 35% (150,000 to 400,000)
  • Fourth Rate of 45% (400,000 to 1,000,000)
  • Fifth Rate of 50% (1,000,000 plus)

A compromise between Kun and TM and some chat people :o --OuWTB 17:50, May 25, 2015 (UTC)

Do propose this in the Second Chamber. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 13:11, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

013. Education Reform

Currently, I have replaced the voucher system in the current Primary and Secondary Laws with the following:

    1. All public primary/secondary schools within Lovia are publicly funded by the Ministry of Education.
      1. No child or their family may pay to use the services of a public primary/secondary school.
      2. Currently, a primary school will receive $11,000/$15,000 for every student regularly attending the primary/secondary school.
      3. If a primary/secondary school believes it requires more funding, it may apply for it to the Ministry of Education.
        1. If the school disagrees with the ministry's decision, it may appeal it to a court.

Thoughts, and suggestions for further changes (not sure what else we need to change in legislation). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:44, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

The clause is deeply flawed. By doing this you are destroying the ability for private individuals to set up small schools were and as needed. Further you are destroying the ability for poor students to go to private schools. Further it stops pupils who are cut off or who need specialist education from being able to hire the right teacher to educate them.

The current system means that wealth is no issue, anyone can go to any school because if you're poor the state will pay and if you're rich you can pay. Further the current system stops people from charging ridiculous amounts for education (a tactic used to try and get rid of poorer children). Your proposed system will mean that rich children get education far in excess of poor children while poor children will not be able to benefit from the flexibility of the old system and will be forced to go to state schools even if they aren't the kind of schools (f.e. a language specialist school) they would want to go to.

I hope that no one would support this change. It is misguided in trying to help the most needy when in reality it just hinders them. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 13:00, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason for anyone to go for private schools in a system that will have excellent public schools. Everyone should have equal access to equal education. Vouchers undermine public schools system and create insidious competition in education, an unacceptable concept for a human right. There will be specialist education provided by the government (I can make that clear in an upcoming revision). No. Poor and rich children will get equal education. Many types of schools will be provided for by the state, as I will add this in upcoming revisions. Vouchers only increase stratification as the rich children that have more ability to prepare get the precious spots in the "top" schools. This system means education is equal. There is no good scientific evidence that vouchers help students. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:05, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

And WHEN did I say that quality would be a problem??? You claim that vouchers undermine public schools but in reality all the voucher system does is strengthen them! It lets them focus on the pupils rather than having to pander after cash like your system would force them to.

Again you are simply throwing out statements that you don't even seem to understand. You are segregating Public and Private when the voucher system brought them together to simply make them be about Education. Further you just state "Vouchers only increase stratification as the rich children that have more ability to prepare get the precious spots in the "top" schools" without any reasoning, nothing at all. How does it increase stratification when all children will have the same resources spent on their education? How do rich children have "more ability to prepare" when the financial advantage is eliminated under the voucher system, what you are doing is bringing it back!

And then you throw in this: "There is no good scientific evidence that vouchers help students." This is a stupid statement. How would one even go about finding scientific evidence that vouchers help students? Do you have scientific evidence that it hinders students? if not the statement is poor and worthless because you have nothing to back it up with. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 13:16, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

Kuanrian, It does seem you're basing your arguments on public schools being inherently worse off than private ones, which is not the case. And I'm sure the states could set up specialized arts/language/les metiers (forget the English name) schools. Still, private schools should be allowed to operate such as Montessori's, Prep Schools, Academies etc. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 13:11, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

Where have I said that Public Schools are worse. NOWHERE. You have no response because the current system actually levels the field completely while Time's reopens the rift. You need to read the old law and read what Time has put not assume that I am attacking Public Schools! Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 13:20, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

No. Vouchers do not strengthen them. In a no-voucher system, pupils do NOT have to pander after cash, because they will be going to public schools with the government paying for all of their education. Because, many studies have shown that rich children are better prepared for education and better able to get into schools with limited space due to the environment they are given by their parents. No-voucher system eliminates this injustice. There is no financial advantage under this system, unless one really desires to go a private school, which will not be better than public schools because the MoE will pursue a strong development of our public schools. Educational research exists and it has not supported vouchers. I am NOT reopening any rift. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:40, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

So despite the fact that under the current voucher system which eliminates cash as a factor in education you claim that it causes pupils to pander after cash?
And then you allege to these studies about rich children being better prepared and therefore being more able to get into limited space schools. Well I hate to break it to you but all school are limited spaces and so you do not eliminate that injustice.
And there is NO financial advantage under the voucher system then you say that there will be none if rich families can spend limitless amounts as they will be able to under yours. I highly doubt the MoE will be able to funnel L$40,000 (a moderate private school amount) per child into education unless you tax our industry to death, abandon our healthcare and confiscate property.
Show me the research then Time! Show me the unbiased, unaltered research that definitively proves your argument that vouchers are bad. You ARE reopening the rift that was sealed and you can't admit it because you are blinded by ideology. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 13:56, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

So it would seem that the core problem you have identified is thus:

  • Profit

Well here's a simple solution for you. Instead of taking away the ability of children to have education structured around them rather than your precious State Education System why not simply add in a clause like this:

Primary Education Act

1.1.4 People or organisations may not charge a tuition that is higher than the grant to provide Primary Education.
1.2 No organisation may make profit from Primary Education.

Secondary Education Act

1.1.4 People or organisations may not charge a tuition that is higher than the grant to provide Secondary Education.
1.2 No organisation may make profit from Secondary Education.

It would eliminate all the problems you claim to want to eliminate without taking the child focused and flexible voucher system. You could even add in a clause about competition, saying that the only legal competition is to provide better education for children. Those are good solutions not your (Once again) blanket solution where you try and force your Statist ideology. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 13:56, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

I am claiming that the proposed system does not introduce cash as a factor. Voucher systems allow rich's children's advantage to become more significant. Under the voucher system the schools are limited just as much as today. If necessary, private schools can become illegal in order to eliminate an unfair advantage. I am not saying there is research, but that there is no research in support of vouchers (sorry if I misspoke earlier). Your solution is unacceptable because vouchers are unacceptable. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:59, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

But in the voucher system rich and poor have the same amount of money spent on their education. Under your system the State would pay a set amount for the poor and the rich would be able to funnel stupid amounts of money into their children's schools. So how does the former increase the advantage of the rich but the latter not? the answer is that the former doesn't and the latter does.
And what? You think making private schools illegal will make things work? Why do you suddenly have to jump to a incredibly extreme position? Why can you not look at the solution above rather than taking your extreme view of things?
And how are vouchers unacceptable? you give no reasoning again. I find it completely acceptable that the rich and poor have the same amount spent on their education and that we do not segregate the rich children off from the poor children in our schooling system. How is equality and lack of segregation bad? Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 14:12, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

I'm advocating equal schooling for all. Rich and poor would use the same system. With vouchers, equality is not the result, as I have explained. I have stated the reasons for which I am against vouchers here and on chat. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:09, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

Again you've failed to answer and created a strawman of the voucher system. You have failed to explain any reasons you have just thrown attacks out without any explanation behind them. The voucher system provides flexibility and fairness for all and if any changes are needed they might be the ones I proposed above, not your radical solutions. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 15:28, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
I have answered why vouchers are unacceptable: "In a no-voucher system, pupils do NOT have to pander after cash, because they will be going to public schools with the government paying for all of their education. Because, many studies have shown that rich children are better prepared for education and better able to get into schools with limited space due to the environment they are given by their parents. No-voucher system eliminates this injustice. There is no financial advantage under this system, unless one really desires to go a private school, which will not be better than public schools because the MoE will pursue a strong development of our public schools. Educational research exists and it has not supported vouchers. I am NOT reopening any rift." "Everyone should have equal access to equal education. Vouchers undermine public schools system and create insidious competition in education, an unacceptable concept for a human right. There will be specialist education provided by the government (I can make that clear in an upcoming revision). No. Poor and rich children will get equal education. Many types of schools will be provided for by the state, as I will add this in upcoming revisions. Vouchers only increase stratification as the rich children that have more ability to prepare get the precious spots in the "top" schools. This system means education is equal. There is no good scientific evidence that vouchers help students." This system absolutely will not segregate, as it will eliminate the unfair advantage that rich children have. It will decrease segregation. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:19, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
Let's split things up shall we? You haven't answered why vouchers are unacceptable. In a voucher system NO ONE has to pander for cash because everyone rich or poor receives the same amount of investment into their education rather than the rich getting a disproportionately large amount. You have said that rich children are better able to get into schools with limited space however all schools have limited space, so in a voucher system the wealth aspect (the ACTUAL biggest difference between rich and poor children) is eliminated, making things EQUAL. Your system cannot negate the fact that many rich children have better starts than poor children so why you would attack the voucher system concerning that I have no idea. If you open this rift between poor and rich, which is what you are doing, the rich will be able to increase their advantage and you will not be able to keep up with the spending per head (which you propose to be 11,000 to 15,000 when rich parents will easily be able to afford much more than that) that unlimited private schooling can invest (this is because their customers are massively rich, obviously). And the educational research you talk of has not been linked to or presented, educational research does not support or oppose vouchers therefore the point is redundant.
You say everyone should have equal access to education, the voucher system provides this as rich or poor, all pupils will have both the equal investment in their education as well as the flexibility to choose what education suits them best. Your system would take both those away by letting private super invest and grow the gap and by also removing the choices for pupils in how they can be educated. Under the voucher system, education is focused around the pupil and what is best for them. You say many types of schools will be provided for, will this be chosen by the state or by the demand for certain types of schools? Because the voucher system already provides for when people want certain types of education for this to be possible. Whether that is through tuition or through schools, it doesn't require the State spending massively more money or to outlaw things, instead if a child needs A then they can use the voucher to get A.
You say vouchers increase stratification but provide no reasoning behind this other than "Rich kids get a better start in life", I am confused as to how this is the fault of the voucher system. The voucher system (unlike the system you propose) takes the biggest difference between rich and poor children, wealth, away and makes sure that the investment into all children's education is EQUAL. Your system will segregate because it eliminates the ability of poor children to attend a private school if they choose through this once again, if your system is implemented, private schools will become the reservoir of the rich. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 17:04, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

1. Even if under vouchers no one has to pander for cash, under a no-voucher system no one has to either. You placing a limit on tuition in your system to be the size of the voucher is about as legal as banning private schools. The rich do NOT get a disproportionately larger amount, since it will (hopefully) be illegal to go to a school other than those paid for by the government.

2. You seem to not understand that having equal money does not make everything "EQUAL". The rich children still have had a more enriched environment and more pushing by parents to perform better, allowing them to get into schools limited in space. This system eliminates that advantage by instead dividing children up into regions. There will not be picking and choosing in education, as schools will be equal to give everyone equal education.

3. That's the size of your current voucher. We can increase the spending per head if you wish. I (think I) have said that there is no educational research to support vouchers being better.

4. Yes, you are correct that there is equal investment. But vouchers promote competition in education, which undermine schools, lead to vicious cycles (students leave school, funding decreases, more students leave) against schools that instead should be further invested in to improve them. "Survival of the fittest" in schools doesn't make sense. The market is neither fair nor that simple. In ideal system, what you say may be true. But this isn't an ideal system.

5. I disagree that parental choice (not the choice of the pupil) is so good. The state will provide for special education and education in an alternate first language if they are necessary for a student. There is no change here except that competition is eliminated.

6. (3rd paragraph) Again. For schools with limited space, the rich students that have had a more enriched environment and more opportunities given to them will perform better, allowing them to get into better schools. Secondly, rich parents will push more for their children. Under vouchers, this would not be prevented because schools are in competition with each other (which I think is bad as explained earlier). In an ideal world, it is equal, but this is not an ideal world.

7. To solve the problem about private schools, public schools will be excellent due to high funding. If absolutely necessary, private schools can become illegal. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:17, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

1. So your whole point about pandering for cash was redundant then. And the voucher limit is not similar in any fashion as eliminating private schools. Your solution to the rich being well off under your system is to just make things illegal. It is a bad system that has to illegalise something which would give better provision (admittedly because they can pump more cash in per head). The answer is not to eliminate things that work better even if they are unfair but to try and eliminate unfairness and make everything work better.
2. I'm sorry but if you are saying that the rich have an unfairly good environment in life. Will you try and make that illegal as well? Oh and so it's clear your system eliminates choice entirely by dictating what school children should go to as you say you will make children go to their regional school rather than letting them choose where they want to go. And you say that all schools will give equal education, what is equal here? will specialist schools be a thing of the past now? because they favour languages or science or something else, is that unequal.
3. I don't think I've criticised the size of the voucher which is very large as it is, I support its size to ensure that education is well funded. And you keep on talking about research that says it neither supports nor opposes vouchers, so therefore it means nothing.
4. And I don't know how competition to provide better education for children is bad or how that undermines education? Surely it just benefits it. You say that the vicious cycle of pupils leaving a bad school is a bad thing, surely it is a good thing if students can get better education and bad schools are not able to keep on going providing bad education because the State says so. And this doesn't require the ideal system to work, unlike yours which requires equally good education across every last one of these regions you mandate and requires that all pupils want exactly the same kind of school in that region.
5. How is the State better at making choices for pupils than their parents? If you don't think parents can take responsible choices for the benefit of their children then why not go all the way and just take them from their parents and put them in the care of the State. And you say the State will provide if it is "necessary" but what if one child from an entire school wants to learn a particular language
6. Again, all however all schools have limited space, so in a voucher system the wealth aspect (the ACTUAL biggest difference between rich and poor children) is eliminated, making things EQUAL. Your system cannot negate the fact that many rich children have better starts than poor children so why you would attack the voucher system concerning that I have no idea.
7. Your logic is not even accepted by your allies. So Private schools will simply become the reserve of the rich and will easily outspend public schools. The voucher system would stop this but you are being ideological about this. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 21:04, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
But you maximized the tuition at the amount on a voucher (11,000 or 15,000) for all schools. I don't see how that's significantly different from banning private schools. Secondary schools may prioritize some things with the consent of the student. The parent's choice is irrelevant; they are not the student. It does undermine education, because the best schools will be limited to privileged students (unless you want affirmative action, which I don't support), and it creates vicious cycles in less well schools. The market simply will not work for that. Parents will of course have input and will help the state but would not be able to just decide the schooling of their child on a whim. It should be the child's choice, so until they are mature enough to make a choice, the state will have to make the best decision for them. I fundamentally disagree that parents can be trusted to do this, which I why I want religious education to be illegal. No, the worst off go to the worst schools because they don't have the ability to prove they are worthy. It's not "EQUAL". You completely ignore non-monetary differences. I am working towards a solution for private schools, but currently your system is little different from banning private schools as it limits tuition to the voucher size. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:28, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
1. Maximising tuition and banning schools are clearly very different. One ensures equality while the other gets rid of any private organisation that wishes to educate children, in whatever form that is.
2. So are you telling me that if a single child wants to learn a language that they would be able to do so under your system? Because under the voucher system they would immediately be able to do so, no "the State needs to decide if it is necessary".
3. How is the parent's choice irrelevant? we let parents feed their children, clothe their children and raise their children. How can they suddenly not make a responsible choice concerning their education? And how is the State suddenly better than parents for putting the child's interest first? Why not if you want the student to be more involved add in a clause that requires their opinion to be taken into account when parents are making their choices (not that it isn't already). That would be ten times better than deciding that the State should make all their decisions.
4. And you say that the best schools will be limited to privileged students but how is that the case under the voucher system when the playing field is level (only the child in person being a factor, wealth being removed)? When under your system you want to let the gap come back into being and let the rich segregate themselves off again from the poor because you think that vouchers undermine public schools but cannot provide evidence of that.
5. You call it the market like it will be some sort of bidding match but it isn't. Money is removed as a factor, so no one will be pining for cash. In reality the market in the voucher system is parents looking at schools (which may provide differing specialisms, language, science, a heavy citizenship focus) and deciding which is best for their child. Under your system parents live in village A so the State says "your child goes to school A", not very good at all.
6. Back to the parent point, you really think parents will decide their child's education on a whim? You keep on assuming that parents make the worst decisions and that the State makes perfect decisions. Which is complete fallacy. And you go on to say that "the state will have to make the best decision for them", this is not right and we go back to the point I made previously, the State does not make perfect decisions and I think that parents make much better decisions in the interest of their children. You fundamentally disagree that parents can be trusted to make the best choice for their children? Then why do you trust parents to make the best choice for their children concerning feeding them, raising them, clothing them, housing them or anything else? Your argument is poor.
7. "Worst off go to the worst schools because they don't have the ability to prove they are worthy". If you truly believe this and that it is because children from poorer backgrounds do not have the good early start then surely, even under your system the richest will do better. Is the answer then not to simply introduce provision for poor families and poor children from age 0-6 (when primary school starts) to ensure that regardless of wealth all children get a healthy start at life? instead of eliminating the voucher system which eliminates wealth as a factor and stops the barrier to poor children from primary schools.
8. And you say that I completely ignore the non-monetary bonuses rich kids get but your system does NOTHING to deal with them either, so why you are bringing them up in this case I have no idea. And if you really think they are important then maybe you will support a bill that I will propose to deal with this, or will you not support it because it will undermine some precious part of the State?
9. Solutions for private schools, I don't even want to think what crazy idea you are going to think up. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 09:07, May 22, 2015 (UTC)
You are being a hypocrite. I am don't want to continue repeating the same things over and over again. You continue to say money is removed as a factor under vouchers. It is not; in fact, it just makes it have an indirect effect. There should be no competition in education. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:54, May 22, 2015 (UTC)
You are calling me a hypocrite. You might want to look up the definition: "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings." I feel that we need equality and so I have advocated that by wanting the rich and poor to receive the same level of investment in their education. You on the other hand are a person who via this act would create a system whereby the rich will do much better than the poor but claims that they want equality. If anyone is the hypocrite it is you. Even more so because you did that too with the taxation, you are a person who acted like they wanted 95% top tax but revealed later that you didn't believe in that. You are a hypocrite.
Dealing with your other points: Money is removed as a factor, if you really believe that the indirect effect is important you would create an act that would provide for poor children the things that would enrich their early lives. Instead you attack private institutions and vouchers for no other reason than your feelings that this system is capitalist and that you hate private institutions. That sounds like it fits the earlier definition of a hypocrite as well.
Then you say there should be no competition in education, how far does your belief stretch in that? Do you just believe schools shouldn't try their best to provide the best education to children or do you also believe (like many seem to) that children should be discouraged from performing better than other children? I'm interested to know what you think. I mean maybe you just hate those children who do well because they might be rich one day and of course that must mean they must be exploiting other people! /sarcasm. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 13:11, May 22, 2015 (UTC)
Unamused You are hypocritical in that you attack private schools being illegal yet support limits on tuition to 11,000 (primary) or 15,000 (secondary), which all but bans them. I would support a 95% top tax but agree there is no chance of it getting through. That's not the reason I'm contra vouchers, it's because they don't work. Not going to respond to the personal attacks. I am not saying everyone must be equal, I am saying all children should be given equal opportunity, something that vouchers do not do no matter how much you claim they do. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:31, May 22, 2015 (UTC)
Except that it doesn't all but ban them... It simply stops them from excluding poorer children by hiking up fees above the tuition amount or abusing the (effectively) free money from the government. If you really think that all that is unique about private schools then you are seriously confused. On 95% tax, if you really support that then you really are disgusting. On vouchers, they do work, you've not proven that they don't. Also you say "Not going to respond to the personal attacks" but then you attack me twice calling me a hypocrite and then when I prove that you are a hypocrite, you can't take it. If you can't take it, don't give it.
"I am not saying everyone must be equal, I am saying all children should be given equal opportunity" except for when it includes vouchers or tax. So when vouchers mean that a rich child and a poor child both have the same opportunity to go to any school in Lovia, wealth wouldn't be a factor, you oppose it. And when I suggest that we instead work on the issues that you feel give richer children an unfair advantage in early life by helping poorer children you don't even respond. So how can you be interested in equality of opportunity when you blatantly ignore anything that might help it? Further you blatantly ignore any of my questions about the flexibility of your state system. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 21:37, May 22, 2015 (UTC)
Katie Conroy has a lot to say about this bill... I'm taking a stance somewhere in between what Kun and Time are saying
  1. Voucher system and private schooling- I don't support the voucher system, so I support Time's changes on this issue. However, we should certainly NOT ban private schools. Private schools should be allowed to operate, of course, but perhaps we could consider putting caps on their profits so that we can ensure that educational organisations put the families they serve above the interests of shareholders. They should reinvest profits in their schools and nurseries.
  2. Religious education- You guys haven't really mentioned this yet, but I saw something that Kun put on Oos' talk page about this bill prohibiting religious education. And yes, I think that religious education should not be allowed. If parents want their children to be raised within a certain religion, that's fine, but we shouldn't be using federal funds to allow our public schools to try and convince young children of certain religious views. Instead, children should be given a balanced approach to religious education, so that they have the freedom to make their own minds up.
  3. Qualified Teacher Status- Just a minor amendment I would like to propose, and something that I've already outlined in our party platform. The current (and proposed) legislation states that "all primary school teachers must have obtained a single Lovian Certificate of Education Level 2 or above". This effectively means that a 16 year old could legally teach at a Lovian primary school. I'm almost 16 but that doesn't mean I could walk into a primary school tomorrow and start teaching a class. So, I propose that we change this to "all primary school teachers must have obtained Qualified Teacher Status, which can be gained through completing an approved teacher training course". We might to add a bit more substance to that, but essentially I think we should implement something like this. Frijoles333 TALK 18:31, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

I can put in some provisions to allow private schooling under a fair system that ensures they don't give an unfair advantage to those that can afford it, if it is desired. Glad to see you agree with banning religious education. Children cannot have a religion. I will be happy to introduce a Qualified Teacher Status. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:50, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

The Conroy proposal looks quite good. I do have some issues with banning religious education. The government shouldn't necessarily directly fund them, but that doesn't mean we should ban them. If said school has a good, balanced curriculum being taught, including science, history etc. along with a few religion courses it should be fine. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 13:09, May 22, 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that I am generally rather opposed to the principle of private schools, because it often leads to what is effectively discrimination based on wealth, i.e. children from a rich family get "better" education that children from a poor family. 77topaz (talk) 20:57, May 22, 2015 (UTC)

Under the voucher system that doesn't occur. Wealth is removed as a factor because all schools charge the same tuition and poorer children get government subsidy to attend them and richer children have their parent's wealth to afford the tuition. i.e. if two children apply to the same school, public or private they both have the same opportunity because they can both afford it. Time raised the issue that he feels that rich children also get unfair advantage from a more enriched childhood before school, so I suggested that instead of trying to ban the flexible and equality promoting voucher system that we make state provisions to ensure that poorer children can have access to various activities that really help enrich their childhood prior to school. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 21:37, May 22, 2015 (UTC)

014. Health, Mental and Social Care Act

Here is my proposal to unite our Healthcare Services and expand them into care and mental health. This looks substantially different to Time's law because it was initially aiming to include mental and social care and so the act fully integrates them into its writing. Further this law treats States in a friendly manner while ensuring that the transition from State based services to National services is assured. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 15:11, May 22, 2015 (UTC)

  • Part 1 establishes the National Care Board and its aims along with other responsibilities and requirements.
  • Part 2 establishes funding and the requirements concerning that. These are noticeably higher than Time's act because this takes into account the additional costs of providing mental and social care as well as health care.
  • Part 3 establishes assessments of needs and the requirement that all centres of population receive proper care.
  • Part 4 establishes organisations that run care and how they act and are dealt with and other things concerning them.
  • Part 5 establishes who really owns the services.
  • Part 6 establishes scrutiny for all care providing organisations.
  • Part 7 establishes regulation of those employed in care.
  • Part 8 establishes who pays the cost of court cases.
  • Part 9 establishes that States can create laws concerning health, mental and social care.
  • Part 10 establishes punishment for violations.

The Act

  1. The National Care Board shall be established and maintained by the Lovian Government.
    1. The aim of the National Care Board is to ensure that all citizens have access to high quality, patient focused care according to the details of this act.
    2. Further the National Care Board is given the responsibility to ensure that smooth and easy communication between different forms of care is in practice and that all organisations operating under this act operate by a unified method of data and information management.
      1. The direction of this should be decided by quarterly meetings involving representatives of the National Care Board, every organisation under this act and every healthcare board under this act.
    3. The National Care Board shall co-operate with educational institutions and other concerned organisations, in Lovia and abroad, to assess and certify whether certain qualifications allow an individual to perform certain roles in the organisations under this act.
    4. The National Care Board can create regulation on the organisations under this act to ensure the aims of this act are met.
      1. If anyone believes that these regulations are not ensuring the aims of the act then they may raise this with the Ministry of Health.
      2. The Ministry of Health or Congress can reverse regulation which they can prove to not be ensuring the aims of the act.
    5. The Ministry of Health will fund the National Care Board to ensure that it can meet its aims and responsibilities according to this act.
    6. The Ministry of Health is responsible for the National Care Board and for all organisations that operate according to the terms in this act.
  2. All State Governments shall receive yearly funding from the Lovian Government to fund Health, Mental and Social care in their States.
    1. Funding will be based on population. There will be a legal minimum funding that a State can receive based on its settlements.
      1. Each State shall receive funding per head for the amount of people living under its jurisdiction according to the most recent census.
      2. The current funding per head is L$2000.
      3. Cities add L$72,000,000 to the legal minimum.
      4. Towns add L$30,400,000 to the legal minimum.
      5. Villages add L$8,400,000 to the legal minimum.
      6. Hamlets add L$880,000 to the legal minimum.
    2. Extra funding can be allocated by the Minister of Health with consent from the Minister of Finance. This extra funding should be to ensure that services can be delivered properly or to provide for when the service is indirectly inadequate. This funding may also be provided for emergency or necessary expansion to ensure that services can be delivered properly in the future.
    3. This funding shall be allocated to the organisations by States on the 1st of April.
  3. All settlements must have a medical centre that is proportional to their needs. It is the duty of States and the Ministry of Health to ensure that this requirement is met.
    1. Need is considered to be based on the local population and their demographics.
    2. Needs that are considered to be better provided for by other medical centres may be delegated from smaller centres to larger them however in such cases, it must be provided for so that free, quick and safe transport for local populations to the medical centre were the services have been delegated to.
    3. It is the obligation for the Ministry of Health to provide medical centres and care where no medical centres or care is being provided but is required under this act.
      1. This is done with the aim of transferring these medical centres to an appropriate organisation under this act as soon as possible.
  4. Organisations separate must be created to operate Health, Mental and Social care.
    1. The aim of organisations is to provide high quality, patient focused care.
    2. Organisations must be not for profit organisations that do not trade shares publicly.
    3. Organisations may not charge citizens for treatments provided.
    4. Organisations may no accept lump sum private donations above L$500.
    5. Organisations may charge resident non-citizens for treatments provided that they were not emergencies and that the treatment was not related to a long term condition. There is an upper limit for charging of L$7500.
      1. States and the Ministry of Health must provide payment plans to assist residents in paying fees, this can take any form the Ministry of Health or State desires.
    6. Organisations may charge non-resident non-citizens for treatments provided that they were not emergencies and that the treatment was not related to a long term condition. There is an upper limit for charging of L$7500.
    7. Organisations may not charge anyone for social care.
    8. Organisations may not delay treatment to acquire information about whether a patient is an inhabitant or not, this may only be done after treatment.
    9. The term treatments excludes actions that are not required to treat a medical or mental ailment.
    10. These organisations may not provide cosmetic surgery unless the surgery is required to improve the individual's health.
    11. The wealth or insurance of an individual may not be taken into account when allocating treatment, primacy shall be given to those with the worst and life threatening ailments.
    12. Patients must not be allowed to wait more than six months for treatment.
      1. This should not be unavoidable, if a patient is having to wait more than six months for treatment then the National Care Board should investigate the matter and find out the cause for this.
      2. Once the cause is found the Ministry of Health should provide funding if needed to ensure the issue does not arise again or other action should be taken by the organisation concerned to ensure that the cause is eliminated.
      3. Patients must be compensated for any damage caused by waiting more than six months.
    13. Organisations must surrender management of resources to the National Care Board should the National Care Board is concerned that they are being managed incorrectly.
      1. This may only be done with the aim of returning the resources to the original organisation or to a new organisation once the cause of the concern is addressed. Preference should be shown towards returning the resources to the original organisation.
    14. Organisations must return unspent cash from the previous financial year to the Ministry of Health on 1st of April.
    15. These organisations will permanently be considered to be held under these terms.
      1. New organisations may be brought under these terms by Congress or by a State Legislature.
      2. A list of organisations under these terms must be kept, known as the Health, Mental and Social Care Organisation Order (HMSCOO).
  5. No one may own a share in any organisation that operates under the Sylvanian Healthcare Service.
    1. The ownership of the organisations will be considered to be the citizens of Lovia.
  6. The National Care Board must establish a care board for each organisation on the HMSCOO and all private organisations that provide health, mental or social care to critique the organisations concerned.
    1. A healthcare board must be made up of paid full time members that have extensive knowledge in healthcare and are not in anyway related, socially or otherwise, to the operators of the organisation or the organisation itself. Voluntary members who wish to assist the board out of community concern are welcomed to assist but are not allowed access to the confidential information of the board.
    2. There must be at least three members on a board but this can be modified to another number above three with the Ministry of Health's approval.
    3. The Ministry of Health may provide funds to assist in said scrutiny and must provide a monthly pay to all board members at a level that allows them to carry out the duties of the healthcare board full time.
    4. When issues are raised by a healthcare board, the National Care Board must respond immediately with an investigation.
    5. Malicious scrutiny is illegal.
  7. When an organisation that provides health, mental or social care wishes to employ an individual to work in their organisation in a position related to care they must send off a form to the National Care Board to assess whether the individual is qualified to work in the organisation with the responsibilities as assigned.
    1. The form shall be created by the National Care Board and the form must be simple, easy to understand and must not be misleading, there must also be a way to trace who filled in the documents and contact the individual concerned.
    2. The National Care Board must respond within a weeks time of the form arriving. The Ministry of Health will provide funding for the National Care Board to meet this requirement.
      1. If the National Care Board cannot respond within a weeks time of the form arriving, they must send communication indicating this and providing a reason.
      2. If the National Care Board has decided that the individual is not qualified then they may not be employed in that position.
    3. When changing the responsibilities of the individuals employed in an organisation where those responsibilities are related to care a new form must be sent off to see whether the individual is qualified for the new set of responsibilities.
  8. Judicial costs for organisations and healthcare boards under this act and for the National Care Board will be paid by the Ministry of Health.
  9. States may create laws and take actions concerning health, mental and social care that do not conflict with this act or the provisions of the organisations within it.
  10. Any individuals found causing a violation of this act, knowingly or otherwise, will be barred from employment in health, mental or social care in Lovia for a period of time that the judge sees as proportional and be required to make this known to any employer who they are applying to be employed by.
    1. Illegalities can also be punished by imprisonment for up to 5 years, by a fine set at a reasonable amount or by the confiscation of property as the judge sees fit. Preference should be shown towards a fine as punishment.

Comment

Why should we be charging citizens, even if it is under $500? HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 15:21, May 22, 2015 (UTC)

That isn't in the act, you may be confusing the second half of this:
Organisations may not charge citizens for treatments provided or accept lump sum private donations above L$500.
It is related to lump sum donations not charging. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 15:25, May 22, 2015 (UTC)
If should be made a little clearer then. And I'm not too keen on the non-citizen fees. If they are residents then they should be covered by the NHS or a state plan and not be forced to pay. HORTON11: Inbox • Follow me! 15:31, May 22, 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with making that further definition for residents and such as well as including that plans should be in place. Further I will immediately make the line clearer. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 15:35, May 22, 2015 (UTC)

This act looks good, but I would prefer entirely government owned healthcare. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:28, May 22, 2015 (UTC)

This is government funded, regulated health, mental and social care. It may not be government owned but neither is it privately owned. It is socially owned. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 15:34, May 22, 2015 (UTC)
So organizations means the clinic/hospital itself? Also, what are the main differences between this act and mine. You attacked mine a bunch yet this seems kind of similar... —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:36, May 22, 2015 (UTC)
There could be any number of organisations under this act. They can operate any number of medical centres (which includes clinics and hospitals) that they are delegated. The main differences? I'll give you three because I have to rush in real life, but if you want I can give you a full list. Firstly this act allows States to continue to be involved in the Healthcare provision in their State. Secondly this act provides better for unifying and providing all three forms of care, health, mental and social. Thirdly this act allows easy transition for many already set up organisations into the unified service. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 15:50, May 22, 2015 (UTC)
What's social care? Providing housing, education, etc.? I agree with everything except that I would prefer states have a unified approach on health. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:53, May 22, 2015 (UTC)
"the provision of social work, personal care, protection or social support services to children or adults in need or at risk, or adults with needs arising from illness, disability, old age or poverty." < Social care. This act does provide a unified approach, and actually under this act States could decide they want to have a unified organisation for a part of one state and a part of another. This act just provides a lot more flexibility than your act and keeps the States involved. Tbh I've considered adding in something to bring some democracy to care, but I don't quite know how. Hoffmann LogoCNP2wt KunarianTALK 17:58, May 22, 2015 (UTC)

015. Research Funding Act

As Lovia's first Minister of Science, I want to prove that it is a position worth preserving in future governments. I am proposing this draft bill for the establishment of a Research Council to fund Lovian scientific research. I would appreciate any comments.

The bill is intended to be non-ideological. I hope that putting Lovia at the forefront of global scientific research is an ambition that all members of congress can get behind. --Peter Blanch 00:22, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

Text

  1. This act provides for government funding for scientific research in Lovia. Funding will be regulated by a central body, the Lovian Research Council, which is funded by the federal government.
    1. The federal government will commit to providing the Council with a budget of $20,000,000 in 2015, and an equivalent amount, adjusted for inflation, in future years.
    2. The Council will provide records of expenditure to the Minister of Finance, who will audit them in consultation with the Minister of Science, to ensure the funding is wisely allocated.
      1. Ministers must carry out the audit in an entirely neutral way, to ensure the objectivity of all research is not threatened.
    3. If there are concerns regarding allocations of funding, Congress should vote on whether a recipient should lose funding.
      1. Prior to voting, independent advisors should be summoned to Congress to provide expert opinions to MOTCs on the issue.
  2. The Council is composed of between 5 and 20 members.
    1. The Council is headed by a chief executive officer (CEO) appointed by the Minister of Science.
      1. The CEO should be a globally respected researcher in their field, with multiple publications in leading journals.
    2. A Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is also appointed by the Minister of Science.
    3. Between 5 and 20 other members should be appointed by the Minister and the CEO, in consultation with other council members. At least one member should be appointed with expertise in each of the following areas:
      1. biology, biochemistry and biotechnology
      2. engineering, physical sciences and mathematics
      3. medical research
      4. social sciences, arts and humanities
      5. environmental sciences
  3. Both government-owned and privately-owned organizations may apply to the Council for funding.
    1. Applications should be sent to the CEO by the 31st of December of each year, in order to receive funding at the start of the financial year in April.
      1. Applications should specify the amount of funding required, the qualifications, experience and achievements of the applicants, and several supporting references.
    2. Funding to privately-owned organizations will be in the form of a purchase of a share in the organization and its profits. The share will be considered to be owned by the government, but administered by the Council.
    3. The following criteria should be considered before deciding to provide a grant:
      1. The quality of the research carried out in the past by the organization, in particular if previously funded by the Council
      2. The extent to which the research is unique, i.e. will provide significant new results compared to any other research funded by the Council or ongoing elsewhere in the world.
      3. The ethical implications of the research.
      4. The likelihood that the research will:
        1. improve the lives of Lovian citizens and humanity in general.
        2. provide a boost to the Lovian economy.
        3. generate revenue for federal or state governments.
        4. Note: research that is scientifically interesting, but does not meet some or all above criteria, may still be worthy of funding, in particular if it has failed to obtain non-Council funding for that reason.
      5. The amount of funding already obtained by the organization.
    4. Funding applications should be assessed by the Council members with the greatest relevant expertise, and the CFO. They will then recommend to the Council if the application should be accepted, and if so, how much funding the project should receive.
    5. The CFO will draw up a budget based on the recommendations of the Council members during the first three months of the year. The budget should be approved by the Council by majority voting; if not, it should be modified and reproposed. The budget should go into effect on April 1st.
    6. Research in all areas described in 1.1.2.3. should be funded.
    7. The council should devote one-tenth of its budget to funding 30 Council Scholarships for Lovian students to undertake Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degrees.
      1. Each scholarship provides funding for three years, for both research costs and a living stipend.
      2. The Ph.D. will be accredited by Blackburn University. Students will be supervised by one or more senior researchers funded by the Council
      3. Organizations may also offer their own Ph.D. scholarships, using either their own or Council funding. In the latter case, this must be agreed with the Council.

Comments

Please comment. --Peter Blanch 00:22, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the terms CEO and CFO, but otherwise Pro Pro. :o —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:31, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

Could use more detail though. How do you file an application, for example (plus state that the Lovian Research Council manages those)? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:34, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.