Banks need stronger oversight because reckless decisions can leave ordinary people paying the price. Natural monopolies are different: where real competition is impossible, essential services should be publicly owned and run in the public interest.
| Law | Previous | Proposed | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Banking & Financial Regulation |
Light-touch regulation
|
Strong prudential oversight
|
|
| 2 | Public Ownership of Key Industries |
Privatise and lightly regulate
|
Public ownership of natural monopolies
|
Party
Left Forward is a young, dynamic movement combining workers’ rights with bold new ideas. We fight for fair wages, equality, and inclusion while standing firmly against right-wing extremism. Together, we defend dignity, strengthen solidarity, and build a just future for all. Together, we move forward
Core pillars
Activist · Age 49
A former corporate lobbyist turned insider, he now leverages his deep connections to dismantle the very systems he once profited from, using his media savvy to turn corporate secrets into public ammunition.
Live tally across each chamber. Weighted by seats held.
For: 34 / 69 seats (49.3%)
Against: 0 · Abstained: 31 · Not voted: 4
| Party | Seats | Vote | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance For Digital Freedom And Rights | 31 | Abstain | We'll be abstaining. Whilst we agree that, although not always, from a macroeconomics standpoint most natural monopolies cannot be efficiently run by private companies, unless at the cost of public good, and would therefore support such a reform, we don't believe a financial governance overhaul is needed at the present time. As data show, Saxenheim's financial sector is growing almost twice as fast as most countries, contributing to annual growth and the general wellbeing of our economic system. Choking banks, especially investment ones, with more regulation, is a risky bet which might cost us a lot with little to no benefits. We agree on the need to stop speculation and act preemptively towards possible crises, when needed: but this is not the case, as our financial system's healthy and part of the reason our cabinet's been able to make Saxenheim prosper. |
| Left Forward Proposer | 10 | Yes | No reason given |
| National Humanist Platform | 0 | Yes | For Saxenheim! For nation! |
| Saxenheim Workers’ Union | 24 | Yes | Banks need stronger oversight to prevent reckless decisions from threatening the wider economy, while essential natural monopolies should remain under public ownership where genuine competition is not possible. Strategic sectors should serve the national interest and provide stability, reliability, and long term economic security rather than being driven solely by private profit. |
| Empty seats | 5 | Not voted |
For: 320 / 650 seats (49.2%)
Against: 0 · Abstained: 286 · Not voted: 44
| Party | Seats | Vote | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance For Digital Freedom And Rights | 286 | Abstain | We'll be abstaining. Whilst we agree that, although not always, from a macroeconomics standpoint most natural monopolies cannot be efficiently run by private companies, unless at the cost of public good, and would therefore support such a reform, we don't believe a financial governance overhaul is needed at the present time. As data show, Saxenheim's financial sector is growing almost twice as fast as most countries, contributing to annual growth and the general wellbeing of our economic system. Choking banks, especially investment ones, with more regulation, is a risky bet which might cost us a lot with little to no benefits. We agree on the need to stop speculation and act preemptively towards possible crises, when needed: but this is not the case, as our financial system's healthy and part of the reason our cabinet's been able to make Saxenheim prosper. |
| Left Forward Proposer | 91 | Yes | No reason given |
| National Humanist Platform | 0 | Yes | For Saxenheim! For nation! |
| Saxenheim Workers’ Union | 229 | Yes | Banks need stronger oversight to prevent reckless decisions from threatening the wider economy, while essential natural monopolies should remain under public ownership where genuine competition is not possible. Strategic sectors should serve the national interest and provide stability, reliability, and long term economic security rather than being driven solely by private profit. |
| Empty seats | 52 | Not voted |
Every vote must state a public reason. Most recent first.
“For Saxenheim! For nation!”
“Banks need stronger oversight to prevent reckless decisions from threatening the wider economy, while essential natural monopolies should remain under public ownership where genuine competition is not possible. Strategic sectors should serve the national interest and provide stability, reliability, and long term economic security rather than being driven solely by private profit.”
“We'll be abstaining. Whilst we agree that, although not always, from a macroeconomics standpoint most natural monopolies cannot be efficiently run by private companies, unless at the cost of public good, and would therefore support such a reform, we don't believe a financial governance overhaul is needed at the present time. As data show, Saxenheim's financial sector is growing almost twice as fast as most countries, contributing to annual growth and the general wellbeing of our economic system. Choking banks, especially investment ones, with more regulation, is a risky bet which might cost us a lot with little to no benefits. We agree on the need to stop speculation and act preemptively towards possible crises, when needed: but this is not the case, as our financial system's healthy and part of the reason our cabinet's been able to make Saxenheim prosper.”