New Democratic Party [NSG Senate | HQ]

[Neo Rome Republic]

In light of recent turbulence that we believe is counterproductive and unnecessary, we wish to propose the following rule for the party.

Statements which are made not only in direct contravention to the stated policy of the party regarding inter-party relationships, but furthermore with the demonstrated intent and effect of breaking or harming those relationships, are treasonous. A treasonous offense makes a member subject to removal from the party with unanimous council approval and a majority vote from the party membership.

In order to implement this rule, we need to hold a vote. That vote will last for 24 hours and requires 50% approval to pass. It begins immediately.

-MV and Div

Could one provide an example of such an offense would be like? Also what statements were you referring to, that have caused a recent turbulence?

[Divair]

Aye.

[Maklohi Vai]

In light of recent turbulence that we believe is counterproductive and unnecessary, we wish to propose the following rule for the party.

Statements which are made not only in direct contravention to the stated policy of the party regarding inter-party relationships, but furthermore with the demonstrated intent and effect of breaking or harming those relationships, are treasonous. A treasonous offense makes a member subject to removal from the party with unanimous council approval and a majority vote from the party membership.

In order to implement this rule, we need to hold a vote. That vote will last for 24 hours and requires 50% approval to pass. It begins immediately.

-MV and Div

Could one provide an example of such an offense would be like? Also, what statements were you referring to, that caused recent turbulence?

If you look over the Progress Coalition thread, you will see an argument about the continued membership of this party in said coalition. There are several statements in there that we are seeking to address, no ex post facto of course, with this rule. There is no single statement that this proposition is based off of.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Could one provide an example of such an offense would be like? Also, what statements were you referring to, that caused recent turbulence?

If you look over the Progress Coalition thread, you will see an argument about the continued membership of this party in said coalition. There are several statements in there that we are seeking to address, no ex post facto of course, with this rule. There is no single statement that this proposition is based off of.

Ah, okay.

[Britanno]

Nay.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Aye.

[Lamaredia]

Aye

[Bering]

Aye

[Agritum]

Abstain

[Jerusalemian]

Abstain.

[Next Washington]

Aye.

[Next Washington]

Honorable Senators!

As my first proposal was "vetoed" by the Minister of Education, I thought of another, for me important topic. I haven't found this in the passed legislature (though if I overlooked it feel free to tell me), so here's my first draft:

Family Incentives Act

---

Foreword
Every modern civilization relies on enough young people who support the older ones, directly by caring about them, or indirectly, by taxes. But nowadays we see that the age pyramid changes dramatically: The old people are getting more and more, while there are areas where people have an average child number at or below 1. That means, this one child has to (partially) pay for three people in the future (parents + itself). Now, this quote is about 1/1, meaning one tax-paying person indirectly cares for another one (a retired person, student, child, ...).
In the short term this quote must be stopped from raising, in the long term even lowered. Therefore the Aurentina government shall provide special incentives, directly and indirectly, for families. Thereby the number of children will rise and the quote will lower.

---

I. In the following, "family" is defined as a two people who have one or more child of which they are fully responsible. That includes married couples with one or more child(ren) as well as registered partnerships with one or more child(ren). The law does not divide between a child as a result of sexual interaction between these two people and between an adopted child.
"Parents" is defined as the two people, regardless of their sex, who are registered as the persons reponsible for the child(ren).

II. Families shall be granted the following direct incentives:
a. A direct money transfer from the government to the parents each month. This payment shall be 100 NSG$(our currency?) per child between 0 and 18 years per month. If the child is between 18 and 24 years old, this payment shall be 50 NSG$ per child and per month.
b. This amount of money must only be paid if the residence of the child is the same as the residence of the parents.
c. Both parents must receive the offer of 5% more free days from their employers.
d. Direct incentives end when the child reaches the age of 25 years.

III. Families shall be granted the following indirect incentives:
a. One of the parents shall be allowed to lower his fiscal relevant income by 500 NGS$ per child and per year.
b. This reduction may only happen if the residence of the child is the same as the residence of the parents.
c. This reduction may only happen until the child reaches the age of 25 years.

IV. Single families, meaning one of the partners left the partnership by cancelling the relationship or death must receive the following treatment:
a. The incentives mentioned in II.a. and II.c. must be doubled. The age limits stay the same.
b. The reduction mentioned in III.a. must be doubled. The age limit mentioned in III.c. must remain the same.
c. II.b. and III.b. also apply for single families.
d. II.d. also applies for single families.

---

Epilogue
This law will successfully increase birth rates as families and those who want to found a family are supported by the government. The government grants parents the possibility of incentives for both raising their children easier and actively influencing their own future as they, when they are retired, will have an easier life due to increased workforce.

please comment!

[Britanno]

The Minister of Education cannot veto your bills, if she is bullying you into withdrawing them then ignore her.

[Next Washington]

The Minister of Education cannot veto your bills, if she is bullying you into withdrawing them then ignore her.

hhmmm... she said they're working on another one, i could help them, but they'd have a different system.. i haven't heard more from her... so i don't wanna quarrel with her, i think this proposal is better

so what do you think about this?

[New Democratic Party of Aurentina]

Following recent events, a vote was started regarding our membership in ProgCo and the possibility of a coalition with the right. Three of five council members have voted in favour of staying in the ProgCo (the last two have not logged on since the vote began), and thus the NDP will be staying in the ProgCo for the foreseen future.

[Britanno]

Following recent events, a vote was started regarding our membership in ProgCo and the possibility of a coalition with the right. Three of five council members have voted in favour of staying in the ProgCo (the last two have not logged on since the vote began), and thus the NDP will be staying in the ProgCo for the foreseen future.

Wow, you had a vote?

[Soviet Canuckistan]

In light of recent turbulence that we believe is counterproductive and unnecessary, we wish to propose the following rule for the party.

Statements which are made not only in direct contravention to the stated policy of the party regarding inter-party relationships, but furthermore with the demonstrated intent and effect of breaking or harming those relationships, are treasonous. A treasonous offense makes a member subject to removal from the party with unanimous council approval and a majority vote from the party membership.

In order to implement this rule, we need to hold a vote. That vote will last for 24 hours and requires 50% approval to pass. It begins immediately.

-MV and Div

Aye.

[Beta Test]

Nay

[Costa Alegria]

Aye. All who disagree are summarily executed/ejected from the party for being twats.

[Britanno]

Wait, so if I say something like "I want the NDP to leave the Progress Coalition" I could be removed from the party?

[Costa Alegria]

Wait, so if I say something like "I want the NDP to leave the Progress Coalition" I could be removed from the party?

If you say something that's potentially damaging to inter-party relations or go against party policy, yes.

If you were serious about the future of this party and its government, you would vote in favour of this new measure.

[Britanno]

Wait, so if I say something like "I want the NDP to leave the Progress Coalition" I could be removed from the party?

If you say something that's potentially damaging to inter-party relations or go against party policy, yes.

If you were serious about the future of this party and its government, you would vote in favour of this new measure.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how clamping down on my right to voice my opinion, such as the example I provided, is fair.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

If you say something that's potentially damaging to inter-party relations or go against party policy, yes.

If you were serious about the future of this party and its government, you would vote in favour of this new measure.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how clamping down on my right to voice my opinion, such as the example I provided, is fair.

You would have to do something absolutely terrible to be kicked out by the entire council and the majority of the party.

[Costa Alegria]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how clamping down on my right to voice my opinion, such as the example I provided, is fair.

You are wanting to damage the party's reputation and relationships with the current coalition. Therefore, you must be silenced.

[Britanno]

You would have to do something absolutely terrible to be kicked out by the entire council and the majority of the party.

Not according to the first part of the proposal, by voicing my opposition to our relations with other parties or coalitions I break the rule. If I break a rule multiple times, people are hardly just going to keep letting me off.