Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
> Opinion Polls
Party Ratings
Test: 50%
Current Government: National Party
National Issues
Health: 50% Education: 50% Economy: 50% Law & Order: 50%
Transport: 50% Social Affairs: 50% Environment: 50% Foreign Affairs: 50%
Government Reputation
Strength: 50%
Popularity: 50%
Trust: 50%

Welcome to Mock Parliament. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
DEFEATED: Rail Network Re-ammendment Motion (2); Private Member Ammendment Motion
Topic Started: May 5 2008, 06:29 PM (333 Views)
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yes, I'm trying again. I understand that my proposals are unpopular, but I still think that it was a dirty trick to ammend my bill without having any intention of passing the ammended version. I want my bill back - even if you don't support my proposals, at least support the principle that a member of parliament should be able to have control over their own bills.


I move that the Rail Network Bill be ammended as follows.

Current Version:

Under this act, the national rail network will be run by a semi-independant government body which will have the power to set non-season ticket fares and will also be responsible for the upkeep of the rail network. It will be economicaly independant from the government but the government will be able to control its policy and service decisions if it so chooses. Season ticket fares will be set by the government.

This bill will not require any funding as this is how things are working now anyway.


Proposed Ammended Version:

Under this bill, the following actions shall take place.

1. The national rail network will be split into several franchises, one for each region. Private companies will then be able to bid for the privelage of running these franchises, with the contract being given to the company that is willing to pay the most to the government. These incoming funds can then be used on other areas of financial spending.

2. If when a franchise comes up for bidding, the relevant regional government wishes to take control of it, then it shall automatically be given the contract. The regional government will not be expected to pay the government for the privelage of running the franchise.

3. A public body called the Railways Watchdog will be created to moniter the performance of these franchises. In the event of an operator failing to run a franchise to an acceptable standard, then the Railways Watchdog will have the power to give the operator a deadline of 6 months to improve standards. If the operator fails to meet this deadline, then the franchise will be revoked. A fresh round of bidding for the franchise will then take place, with the previous operator barred from participating. If a franchise operator wishes to reduce/cancel a rail service or raise fares by more than double the rate of inflation, then they must argue their case to the Railways Watchdog. If the Railways Watchdog is unsatisfied by their case, then they will not be able to carry out their plans.

4. It will be made clear that the government will reserve the right to renationalise the railways at any time. In the event of this happening, the operators will be compensated for their loss.

5. In order to carry out this bill, the National Rail Act will be repealed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The question is as in the motion.

As many who are of that opinion say aye,
Aye!
To the contrary no,
No!

Division!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Inane moaner
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It is my view that Semi-nationalisation can be costly and be detrimental to the quility of service. If you want it privatised then privatise it.

I'd rather keep the cost of trains low as possible as it's reasonably environmentally freindly. Nationalised roads and privatised rail seems the ultimate anti eco stance.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
miniyoda008
Member Avatar
Master of the Force
Community Moderator
I shall continue my tendency to vote for all railway bills, whether privatising or nationalising. I'll work out whether I actually like the plans if the actual bill ever comes to a vote.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cieran
Member Avatar
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I really must ask though, what is the point of the clause in the current bill which states that you have to pay every member of Ostentia for their share if you can just repeal the bill? I really don't think that's very fair AT ALL. Paying all that money to EVERY citizen is very costly. Not doing it is grossly unfair...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HRH King Zog II
Member Avatar
Waffler of the House of Boreds
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Cieran
May 5 2008, 07:50 PM
I really must ask though, what is the point of the clause in the current bill which states that you have to pay every member of Ostentia for their share if you can just repeal the bill? I really don't think that's very fair AT ALL. Paying all that money to EVERY citizen is very costly. Not doing it is grossly unfair...

I just put that in there to annoy CC0.

As he says I never had any intention of moving the bill

Edit: Has idea
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm not asking people to support my privatisation plans, but to at least let me put them before the house as a bill!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cieran
Member Avatar
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
May I also note that this is hypocritical. In order for this to take place, the previous bill is repealed and shareholders are not recompensed. However you state that with this one we also have to recompense the owners. What's with the double standards here?...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Cieran
May 6 2008, 04:41 PM
May I also note that this is hypocritical. In order for this to take place, the previous bill is repealed and shareholders are not recompensed. However you state that with this one we also have to recompense the owners. What's with the double standards here?...

The method of compensation currently proposed is overly bureaucratic. The public could easily be compensated after passing this bill with a tax cut - and we are severely in need of one at the moment. The number of wasted budget units is running into double figures.

A tax cut would also be better than a one-off payment, as it would result in people getting more money than they otherwise would.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cieran
Member Avatar
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
But tax cuts benefit the rich more than the poor. Say the tax rate is 50%, and I earn £100,000, I therefore give £50,000 to the government. If that is then cut by 10% I gain £10,000, and am only paying £40,000 to the government. However, were I only earning £10,000 per year, I'd be giving £5,000 to the government. A 10% cut would give me £1,000 back. I know that's over simplistic, and I also know we have progressive income tax, but the point still stands...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Cieran
May 6 2008, 06:34 PM
But tax cuts benefit the rich more than the poor. Say the tax rate is 50%, and I earn £100,000, I therefore give £50,000 to the government. If that is then cut by 10% I gain £10,000, and am only paying £40,000 to the government. However, were I only earning £10,000 per year, I'd be giving £5,000 to the government. A 10% cut would give me £1,000 back. I know that's over simplistic, and I also know we have progressive income tax, but the point still stands...

No, it doesn't. A progressive income tax means that the poor will benefit just as much as the rich. In addition, if I were in government I would specify that the BTR would be reduced by taking people at the bottom end of the income spectrum out of income tax completely. Should this create a funding black hole (although considering how much money the government is currently sitting on, I'd doubt it) then I would raise the level of inheritance tax.

Still think that my tax cuts would benefit the rich more than the poor?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cieran
Member Avatar
Should-like-totally-be-the Prime Minister
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
By saying that the point still stands I meant that it stands in places that don't. Obviously that isn't here, I was just stating an argument against tax cuts in general...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Commoncold0
Member Avatar
Elder Statesman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
*concedes defeat*

The results of the vote are as follows:
Ayes to the right: 5
Nos to the left: 6

The nos have it! Motion defeated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Inane moaner
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Huzzah :tophat:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Debates · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Mock Parliament Wiki

Looking for the posts about Democratia, Ostentia or Brian Blessed? Click here.