We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Train Transport Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Classical Liberal Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: June 2642
Description[?]:
| An act to allow private companies to provide train services. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Train Operating Companies (TOC).
Old value:: There is a single publicly owned TOC.
Current: The State owns and operates a national TOC, alongside private TOCs.
Proposed: The State owns and operates a national TOC, alongside private TOCs.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:36:34, September 24, 2008 CET | From | Hobrazian Extraordinary Gentlemen's Club | To | Debating the Train Transport Act |
| Message | We are not sure that private companies might have enough capital to invest into railroads, provide safe and relatively cheap transportations of goods and passengers. |
| Date | 14:47:34, September 24, 2008 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Train Transport Act |
| Message | Private rail companies cannot operate services without heavy public subsidy, especially for passenger transport. This requirement would take money away from Hobrzian Railways and, rather than improve service quality, would actually have the opposite effect as Hobrazian Railways would no longer have the funding to operate current service levels whilst the private company would not see high enough returns on its investment to make such a proposition affordable. |
| Date | 23:00:11, September 24, 2008 CET | From | First Party Of Hobrazia | To | Debating the Train Transport Act |
| Message | We are always keen for private enterprise and businees as we would like a free market, however there must be restrictions to this and we have a long term understanding with the WSS!P to protect our national railways system that we will not forget, so we must vote no despite our beliefs |
| Date | 06:23:47, September 25, 2008 CET | From | Classical Liberal Party | To | Debating the Train Transport Act |
| Message | Why should we dictate what private companies do? How can you sit there and make those guesses about the capital of private companies? We are not forcing private companies to provide train transport, merely providing them with a choice, and why not? This is a disgrace! This country is operating a command economy in this sector, and to quote the We Say So! Party: "This requirement would take money away from Hobrzian Railways and, rather than improve service quality, would actually have the opposite effect as Hobrazian Railways would no longer have the funding to operate current service levels whilst the private company would not see high enough returns on its investment to make such a proposition affordable." Too bad! If Hobrazian Railways lost sales, it would only be because of the private sector offering higher quality , otherwise people would simply stick with Hobrazian Railways and the private companies would sink. Too bad for them! And may I make an example of New Zealand, who sold their public railways to a private company in 1993, who promptly turned the railways from squalor and deficit, to quality and profit. Which I expect will happen in Hobrazia, if this bill is passed. |
| Date | 09:05:08, September 25, 2008 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Train Transport Act |
| Message | OOC: One, please don't use real world examples as this is an IC game and; Two: New Zealand rail companies receive local government funding in order to operate local passenger services as these services are *not* economically viable. Also, additional money is received from Land Transport for New Zealand, as well as the Crown directly for infrastructure and rolling stock. Not exactly a stand alone industry. And quality is certainly debatable with many arguing that quality and capacity has not increased whereas cost to the consumer has increased. And if we are going to use real world examples, the last time any passenger rail company made a true profit without subsidy was INTERCITY in the UK where it subsidised its local operations to the tune of £500m in the late '80's early '90's whereas the current private companies receive £4,593m compared to BR's (price adjusted) £2,168m. IC: You take the quote out of context. If you add the first line, which is crucial for everything that follows, you would note that it states: " Private rail companies cannot operate services without heavy public subsidy, especially for passenger transport." Now, this has been a fact since the nineteenth century where passenger operations were able to pay for themselves due to the far lower costs in terms of maintenance, wages, and crucially safety. Add all these things together and there is a requirement for subsidy. |
| Date | 06:06:02, September 26, 2008 CET | From | Classical Liberal Party | To | Debating the Train Transport Act |
| Message | Nevertheless, why can't we provide the private sector with a choice? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 88 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 218 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 69 |
| Random fact: By default the head of government is the ultimate authority within a national government. In general terms, heads of government are expected to consult with cabinet colleagues (including those from other parties) before making significant decisions but they remain responsible for government action. |
| Random quote: "I consider myself a citizen of the world!" - Charlie Chaplin |