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: Opposition II Bill I
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic Dictatorship 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 3026
Description[?]:
| New bill |
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 | 20:16:58, November 04, 2010 CET | From |  Democratic Dictatorship Party | To | Debating the Opposition II Bill I |
| Message | We believe that private TOC's may be beneficial to improving local and regional train service. |
| Date | 21:42:06, November 04, 2010 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Opposition II Bill I |
| Message | We disagree. The nature of railway operations actively prohibit the ability to operate competitive services on individual lines without multiple lines being constructed. Allowing private operators to operate on the public system would, should Hobrazian Railways be forced to allow their operations, take income away from HR and could negatively effect the network as a whole. |
| Date | 22:59:13, November 04, 2010 CET | From | Democratic Dictatorship Party | To | Debating the Opposition II Bill I |
| Message | Private TOC's would obviously need to pay some sort of tax for using the railways. This means they would have to operate on high-yielding (profit wise) routes, which can only be achieved where HR are less present. This would ultimately bring a better service to citizens who do not receive a sufficient service from HR and HR wouldn't lose any money because of the tax private TOC's would have to pay for using their railway. |
| Date | 14:51:12, November 05, 2010 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Opposition II Bill I |
| Message | This makes the assumption that high yield routes would have spare capacity, which is highly unlikely as those services sponsor the less profitable services required by the legislation by whoch HR is opertated. |
| Date | 18:10:55, November 05, 2010 CET | From | Democratic Dictatorship Party | To | Debating the Opposition II Bill I |
| Message | The only way for private TOC's to make any profit is to operate on routes where HR can't or don't provide a good enough service (eg. short range trips for commuters) . Should private TOC's start operating on these routes it would offer commuters an alternative without damaging HR. I called them high-yield because private TOC's would have less competition from HR. |
| Date | 19:00:46, November 05, 2010 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Opposition II Bill I |
| Message | Commuter services don't make money, the only rail services which are income generators are long distance intercity services which are operated by HR's INTERCITY arm whose sole purpose for operations is to make money. Private passenger rail companies require subsidy, always have and always will, and that money can be better spent maintaining HR than attempting to support small low yield companies. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |
| yes | Total Seats: 187 | |
| no |
Total Seats: 213 | |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Party organizations are eligible for deletion if they are over 50 in-game years old, do not have at least 1 active member or are historically significant and possess historically significant information. |
| Random quote: "The reason there are so few female politicians is that it is too much trouble to put makeup on two faces." - Maureen Murphy |