Nationalisation..

[Bazzmand Show]

I'm sorry but this is all wrong. The only wholly state owned airlines on there are the Middle Eastern airlines but try looking up their profit and loss accounts and have you ever priced up a flight with those airlines??

As others have alluded to here, you are taking an incredibly capitalist view on things and that focuses on 'profit and loss'. A public bit of infrastructure can be run at a loss, if the bigger pieces of the economy it connects are thriving.

I'll give you an example, if the government really wanted to encourage economic growth outside the capital - why not spend more money on a better and cheaper rail network? If it makes a loss, but encourages greater movement of people is this not a net positive?

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

As others have alluded to here, you are taking an incredibly capitalist view on things and that focuses on 'profit and loss'. A public bit of infrastructure can be run at a loss, if the bigger pieces of the economy it connects are thriving.

I'll give you an example, if the government really wanted to encourage economic growth outside the capital - why not spend more money on a better and cheaper rail network? If it makes a loss, but encourages greater movement of people is this not a net positive?

Its the lack of joined up thinking with Governments that makes laugh......


How are we going to hit our climate change targets?

Why don't we offer a really efficient service and cheap fares on the Metro so that people don't have to use cars?

But what about the profit?


and so it goes on and on and on

 

[Bazzmand Show]

Its the lack of joined up thinking with Governments that makes laugh......


How are we going to hit our climate change targets?

Why don't we offer a really efficient service and cheap fares on the Metro so that people don't have to use cars?

But what about the profit?


and so it goes on and on and on

Yeah, it's almost mind blindingly frustrating.

'Why don't we get more people cycling by offering better and safer cycling networks?' 'This will help us in the climate change quota'.

'Oh but what about the cost?'

'Forget it then'

 

[manchester blue]

You may pay more tax, yet may save more on your energy bills than you pay in tax. If you take away the need for profit and run it for the public good then then the money paid to a limited number of shareholders can be spread to everyone, which will mean everybody saves instead of the few profiting.

It is plain ridiculous that your tax money was used to build infrastructure and then it was sold to a few who could profit from your tax.

Profit? Have you seen how Centrica shares have performed over 12 months! :)

 

[blueinsa]

This thread......fuck profit and business.

Brexit threads......think of business, think of profit, think about the markets and economy.

Same posters as well ;-)

 

[inbetween]

As others have alluded to here, you are taking an incredibly capitalist view on things and that focuses on 'profit and loss'. A public bit of infrastructure can be run at a loss, if the bigger pieces of the economy it connects are thriving.

I'll give you an example, if the government really wanted to encourage economic growth outside the capital - why not spend more money on a better and cheaper rail network? If it makes a loss, but encourages greater movement of people is this not a net positive?

The last time I read Labour's nationalisations will cost in excess of £250bn.

So okay let's ignore profit and loss however if you want those nationalisations then you have to put taxes up, make cuts elsewhere or have ticket prices priced to pay for it... Which will it be?

Assuming you will run it at a loss then you will just add to debt but the elephant in the room is we already have a debt that costs us more per year in interest than we spend on defence.

This is for the sake of what, a ticket that costs £5 instead of £15? Lol

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

The last time I read Labour's nationalisations will cost in excess of £250bn.

So okay let's ignore profit and loss however if you want those nationalisations then you have to put taxes up, make cuts elsewhere or have ticket prices priced to pay for it... Which will it be?

Assuming you will run it at a loss then you will just add to debt but the elephant in the room is we already have a debt that costs us more per year in interest than we spend on defence.

This is for the sake of what, a ticket that costs £5 instead of £15? Lol

renationalisation of rail will not cost a penny.... we will take back the franchise agreements as and when they fall due for renewal. The lines are profitable (they would hand them back if they weren't ) the difference will be that the profit will be reinvested into rail or other infrastructure projects.

 

[urban genie]

In the five years to 2017/18, the government subsidy for the railways has been around £5.3 billion a year on average (in 2017/18 prices). This doesn’t include loans to Network Rail.

That has been in infrastructure mainly there is even more tax payers money subsidising the franchises

Northerns financial statements show Gov subsidy payments are about £284m each year.

Northern is losing profits though because it has ran a shite franchise, as have others.

Every franchise that has failed and come under national control has managed to reinvest any profit to improve service, then when refranchised the service levels have dropped as happened with east coast twice

We are paying billions of tax money on the railways while not reaping the rewards of the profits.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Water supplies and sanitation should be free and provided as part of our taxation not a seperate bill.

So, NOT free then!

Do you own a car wash or some other heavy water using business?!

Instead of “free,” make DELIVERY an included cost of infrastructure, but USAGE a per liter cost. This serves to not only help pay for the cost of generating clean water, but also creates a user fee based on volume. After all, why should someone who conserves water pay as much as someone who wastes it? Water will be the new sin tax, you watch!!

 

[inbetween]

Singapore Airlines is 56% owned by the state. Thai Airways is more than 50% owned by the Thai Ministry of Finance. In other words, the state has a controlling stake in each case. Lufthansa and Qantas are basically private companies now. But the point about the Middle Eastern airlines and their profit and loss accounts is another example of missing the point of state ownership. The whole point of state ownership of key infrastructure is that they are able to be operated with the bigger picture in mind. It's possible (though not necessary) to operate public services at a loss, temporarily or permanently, in the hope of increased investment in other areas of the economy. I doubt Dubai or Abu Dhabi would be what they are today if they hadn't investing shitloads of public money into making them attractive transport hubs between Asia and Europe. And just for the record, I regularly fly between Asia and Europe, and Emirates, Qatar and to a lesser extent Etihad are regularly amongst the most affordable options (just had a quick look for August and a flight from where I am to Manchester is cheapest on Emirates followed by KLM and Oman Air, with basically naff all between them).

It's worth mentioning that nationalisation always becomes an option during a catastrophic fuck up. Northern Rock was nationalised when it threatened the economy. When the private company that ran the Fukushima power plant ignored two of their own safety reports leading to a triple nuclear meltdown, they were effectively nationalised to deal with the massive compensation payouts. We're always ready to jump in and spend government money cleaning up after private company failures, yet the idea of a government owning it before it fucks up is a complete non-starter for some people. As I said earlier, it's the dogma surrounding this issue that's ridiculous. As is the characterisation that if we had for example a publicly-owned nuclear power plant, then Boris Johnson would be personally managing the reactor.

I'm sorry but this is a completely pointless argument because for every good example of nationalised companies there are bad ones and vice versa for private ones.

I can say without any doubt that who owns or operates an airline makes absolutely no difference to the service you get back.

You mention Fukushima so I will just say have you not looked at who owned and operated Chernobyl?

Chernobyl is a great one to read about because the pressures coming from the national government and cost cutting were considered a major contributor to the explosion.

Of course accidents, cock ups and total incompetence doesn't happen with national operators though does it?