This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#1
M621 -Cardiff Airport Motion; TSR Libertarian Party
This house, in its capacity as the Welsh Parliament, reiterates the calls made in M570 for the Government, in its capacity as the devolved administration in Wales, to return Cardiff Airport to the private sector.

As we reach the midpoint of the term, assuming a full ordinary term, this house reaffirms its view of the house expressed at the turn of the year in M570, passed by this House by 5 votes to 3, and almost reaffirmed 3 weeks later by VP100 where votes were tied and only failed due to a whipping effort by the government of the time and the belief by some members that a bill should have been presented given the government had made clear no action would be taken.

This house further notes that every single MP for the current government who voted on VM570 supported the motion and that none voted against VP100.

As in January it remains the case that Cardiff Airport does not represent a "natural monopoly". Nor is there an absence of viable alternatives in the area meaning that should the outcome of the sale be closure of the airport the local population would not be denied access to the services provided. Similarly the airport does not represent infrastructure whose closure would have severe and wide reaching consequences, economic or otherwise, to either the region or nation as a whole. Given these three factors this house therefore believes there is no basis for long term public ownership of Cardiff Airport and that it should be returned to private ownership.
Spoiler:
Show






Mae'r tŷ hwn, yn rhinwedd ei swydd fel Senedd Cymru, yn ailadrodd y galwadau a wnaed yn M570 i'r Llywodraeth, yn rhinwedd ei swydd fel y weinyddiaeth ddatganoledig yng Nghymru, ddychwelyd Maes Awyr Caerdydd i'r sector preifat.

Wrth i ni gyrraedd canolbwynt y tymor, gan dybio tymor cyffredin llawn, mae'r tŷ hwn yn ailddatgan ei farn am y tŷ a fynegwyd ar droad y flwyddyn yn M570, a basiwyd gan y Tŷ hwn o 5 pleidlais i 3, ac a ailddatganwyd bron 3 wythnos yn ddiweddarach gan VP100 lle clymwyd pleidleisiau a dim ond wedi methu oherwydd ymdrech chwipio gan lywodraeth yr oes a chred rhai aelodau y dylid bod wedi cyflwyno bil o ystyried bod y llywodraeth wedi nodi'n glir na fyddai unrhyw gamau yn cael eu cymryd.

Mae'r tŷ hwn yn nodi ymhellach bod pob AS unigol ar gyfer y llywodraeth bresennol a bleidleisiodd ar VM570 yn cefnogi'r cynnig ac na phleidleisiodd yr un yn erbyn VP100.

Fel ym mis Ionawr mae'n parhau i fod yn wir nad yw Maes Awyr Caerdydd yn cynrychioli "monopoli naturiol". Nid oes diffyg dewisiadau amgen hyfyw yn yr ardal ychwaith sy'n golygu pe bai canlyniad y gwerthiant yn cau'r maes awyr ni fyddai'r boblogaeth leol yn cael mynediad i'r gwasanaethau a ddarperir. Yn yr un modd, nid yw'r maes awyr yn cynrychioli seilwaith y byddai ei gau yn arwain at ganlyniadau difrifol ac eang ei gyrhaeddiad, yn economaidd neu fel arall, naill ai i'r rhanbarth neu'r genedl gyfan. O ystyried y tri ffactor hyn, cred y tŷ hwn felly nad oes sail i berchnogaeth gyhoeddus hirdymor Maes Awyr Caerdydd ac y dylid ei ddychwelyd i berchnogaeth breifat.






M570 - https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=6288782
VP100 - https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=6316782
Last edited by Andrew97; 2 months ago
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 months ago
#2
Given how much of a fuss was made over the inaction of the government at the time it is a little surprising nothing has happened in the three months this government has had, they shouldn't need this reminder.

And as a note to Saracen's Fez, I know the translation isn't correct, I used Google translate for it and the Welsh GCSE is so useless that The Mogg couldn't sort it out.
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 2 months ago
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 months ago
#3
I had a minor heart attack when I saw this thread title.

Needless to say both hyperlinks do not work.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 months ago
#4
(Original post by 04MR17)
I had a minor heart attack when I saw this thread title.

Needless to say both hyperlinks do not work.
Give me a minute, copying and pasting doesn't work because it copies the ellipsis rather than the full link

VM570 https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=6288782
VP100 https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=6316782

Andrew97 would you kindly amend the links in the OP
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#5
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Give me a minute, copying and pasting doesn't work because it copies the ellipsis rather than the full link

VM570 https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=6288782
VP100 https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=6316782

Andrew97 would you kindly amend the links in the OP
Should be fixed.
0
SnowMiku
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 months ago
#6
The house has voted for this to be the case (in M570) and I support this on that basis.
0
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 months ago
#7
No, please not again.
0
BosslyGaming
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 months ago
#8
I do find it quite strange that the Conservative Party haven't already done this after they kicked up a big fuss about us not doing this and tried to find us in contempt of parliament - before hilariously losing VP100 and withdrawing the contempt motion, which they undoubtedly would have used to try a MoNC should it have passed.

Anyway, back on topic - probably unsurprisingly, I don't support this.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 months ago
#9
I suspect there will be three general reactions

the JMR/04: "please God no" reaction (unlike with the Tories this won't drag on and on, if this passes and the governemnt fails to act there will either be a bill or silence rather than condemnation motions etc)
The Snow response: "The house supported it so aye" response
And the LoL/Connor/etc response "Reeeeeeee, PoLiTiCaL sTuNt WrItE a BiLl YoUrSeLf" reaction.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 months ago
#10
Aye! It's a vanity project that doesn't need to exist. It should be knocked down and the land used for something else (preferably not housing).

Bristol Airport is a modern airport that people want to fly from.
0
BosslyGaming
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 months ago
#11
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Aye! It's a vanity project that doesn't need to exist. It should be knocked down and the land used for something else (preferably not housing).

Bristol Airport is a modern airport that people want to fly from.
You do realise that, although it mentions closure apparently having little effect, the motion doesn't actually call for it to be knocked down? Perhaps it ought to be rewritten to reflect its true intention.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 months ago
#12
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
You do realise that, although it mentions closure apparently having little effect, the motion doesn't actually call for it to be knocked down? Perhaps it ought to be rewritten to reflect its true intention.
The intention is stated, if the sale leads to closure as an airport and rezoning then so be it.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 months ago
#13
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
You do realise that, although it mentions closure apparently having little effect, the motion doesn't actually call for it to be knocked down? Perhaps it ought to be rewritten to reflect its true intention.
If a private company doesn't want to buy it the government will have to dispose of it in other ways. Private companies won't invest what's needed in it and it will eventually close.
0
BosslyGaming
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 months ago
#14
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
If a private company doesn't want to buy it the government will have to dispose of it in other ways. Private companies won't invest what's needed in it and it will eventually close.
The motion should say that then. It doesn't call on the government to sell it, but if they don't manage that then to bin it off - it just calls on the government to sell it. If it can't be sold then the natural next step, without the motion stating otherwise, would be for it to be held in the goverment's hands until it can be sold. The motion should say what it means - don't beat around the bush, just come out and say it.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 months ago
#15
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
The motion should say that then. It doesn't call on the government to sell it, but if they don't manage that then to bin it off - it just calls on the government to sell it. If it can't be sold then the natural next step, without the motion stating otherwise, would be for it to be held in the goverment's hands until it can be sold. The motion should say what it means - don't beat around the bush, just come out and say it.
"This house, in its capacity as the Welsh Parliament, reiterates the calls made in M570 for the Government, in its capacity as the devolved administration in Wales, to return Cardiff Airport to the private sector."

What you on?
0
BosslyGaming
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 months ago
#16
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
"This house, in its capacity as the Welsh Parliament, reiterates the calls made in M570 for the Government, in its capacity as the devolved administration in Wales, to return Cardiff Airport to the private sector."

What you on?
Try reading the full sentence? Indeed eleven words later I say it calls on the government to sell it.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 months ago
#17
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I suspect there will be three general reactions

the JMR/04: "please God no" reaction (unlike with the Tories this won't drag on and on, if this passes and the governemnt fails to act there will either be a bill or silence rather than condemnation motions etc)
The Snow response: "The house supported it so aye" response
And the LoL/Connor/etc response "Reeeeeeee, PoLiTiCaL sTuNt WrItE a BiLl YoUrSeLf" reaction.
I'll clarify that my reaction was mostly down to me forgetting and then remembering all of the previous trauma. I actually abstained on the original motion iirc and was appalled at the then government's attempts to frustrate the will of the house. It was a big contributing factor to why I left the Lib Dems.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 months ago
#18
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
Try reading the full sentence? Indeed eleven words later I say it calls on the government to sell it.
I was going to say "how else are you going to return it to the private sector" but I guess you could do it "for free" but even then technically consideration would still be required.
0
BosslyGaming
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 months ago
#19
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I was going to say "how else are you going to return it to the private sector" but I guess you could do it "for free" but even then technically consideration would still be required.
As I said, if you can't sell it then you keep it until you do (unless the motion actually says that don't sell = knock it down)

(Original post by 04MR17)
was appalled at the then government's attempts to frustrate the will of the house
Expecting someone to do something for you that they're not that interested in doing is rarely going to go well. They literally could've written a bill and been done with this months ago.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 months ago
#20
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
As I said, if you can't sell it then you keep it until you do (unless the motion actually says that don't sell = knock it down)


Expecting someone to do something for you that they're not that interested in doing is rarely going to go well. They literally could've written a bill and been done with this months ago.
I don't really get your issue, is it that the motion doesn't explicitly say that it doesn't have to be sold instantaneously, or is it that it doesn't explicitly state that the sale into the private sector doesn't have to be as an airport? Given the government's poor record on actioning motions maybe such things should be specified.

(Original post by 04MR17)
I'll clarify that my reaction was mostly down to me forgetting and then remembering all of the previous trauma. I actually abstained on the original motion iirc and was appalled at the then government's attempts to frustrate the will of the house. It was a big contributing factor to why I left the Lib Dems.
So when you are you leaving the CP/trying to get the CP to leave the current government?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (99)
13.45%
I'm not sure (32)
4.35%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (230)
31.25%
I have already dropped out (17)
2.31%
I'm not a current university student (358)
48.64%

Watched Threads

View All